Re: [PATCH] zsh/random module [UPDATED]

[Daniel Shahaf <d.s@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Clinton Bunch wrote on Fri, Nov 18, 2022 at 12:38:26 -0600:
> 
> On 11/18/2022 12:12 PM, Stephane Chazelas wrote:
> > 2022-11-18 11:08:42 -0600, Clinton Bunch:
> > [...]
> > > > Some comments about the API:
> > > > 
> > > > >     -c COUNT
> > > > >          Sets the number of returned random data.  Defaults to 8,
> > > > >          unless -i, -L, or -U is specified without -a, in which case
> > > > >          the default is 1.  COUNT must be between 1 and 64.
> > > > Why those arbitrary limits? Why not from 0 to inf?
> > > the getrandom function only guarantees 256 bytes.  64 32-bit integers.
> > > Allowing 256 uint8 would be possible, but harder to explain and doesn't work
> > > well with bounding.  As the difference between the lower and upper limit
> > > surpasses half the max, the number of bytes thrown away to allow uniformity
> > > of distribution becomes unwieldy.
> > > 
> > > Also zero would not be particularly useful :)
> > You could call getrandom() as many times as necessary. From a
> > user point of view (mine at least) that limit doesn't make
> > sense. Users don't care what API you use underneath.
> > 
> > An array can have from 0 to inf elements, a string 0 to inf
> > bytes, I should be able to request from 0 to inf numbers/bytes to
> > store in my array/string.
> I can't do inf (there is a limit to how big an array can be, the largest
> integer for an index).  I honestly think it's unlikely anyone will need more
> than 64 random integers.  I saw no reason to expand the limit, but it can be
> done.
> > > > Without -i you get uint8 in hex and with -i uint32 in decimal.
> > > > Why the different bases?
> > > It's possible to break a hex string into bytes in a rather straight forward
> > > way.   A string of decimal numbers not so much, but decimal numbers are
> > > easier to manipulate.
> > > 
> > > If I didn't think it should do *something* when given no arguments, I'd
> > > eliminate the hex string altogether.
> > Alternatively, you could add a -f %02x, -f %u -f %c and do
> > without the -r/-i, with default -c 8 -f %02x -L 0 -U 255.
> That seems a lot more confusing than -r (raw) or -i (integer) unless it's
> expanded to a lot more arbitrary formats.  At least for someone not familiar
> with printf formats.

Could have something like this:

    "-f:specify format:(raw hex decimal)"

It's extensible and readable.  (Could easily extend it to support printf
formats, or uppercase/lowercase hex variations, etc..)  Also, it uses
one fewer short option :)