Difference between revisions of "Talk:LlListRandomize"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (Talk:LSL llListRandomize moved to Talk:LlListRandomize: removing prefix) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
I re-added the func_id as it is a knowable value... is the old function being phased out and that why it was removed? [[User:Strife Onizuka|Strife Onizuka]] 19:46, 31 January 2007 (PST) | I re-added the func_id as it is a knowable value... is the old function being phased out and that why it was removed? [[User:Strife Onizuka|Strife Onizuka]] 19:46, 31 January 2007 (PST) | ||
== [[LlListRandomize]] and the use of random vs pseudo random == | |||
<div id="box"> | |||
''Moved from [[User_talk:Strife_Onizuka#LlListRandomize_and_the_use_of_random_vs_pseudo_random]] | |||
Since you seem to have written and/or formatted a lot of the documentation on this I figure you'd be the best choice to answer this question. For [[LlListRandomize]] should all uses of random be replaced with pseudo random as appears to be the case with [[llFrand]]'s mentioning of random number generation or should it be left as it is currently referencing random which is less accurate in my opinion. [[User:Gordon Wendt|Gordon Wendt]] 13:31, 8 June 2008 (PDT) | |||
</div> | |||
:Sounds like the right thing to do but it's going to make the wording awkward and probably make people underestimate the randomness of the function. I'd recommend putting a comment in the notes section explaining that it isn't entirely random but should be adequate for most applications. -- [[User:Strife Onizuka|Strife Onizuka]] 13:53, 8 June 2008 (PDT) | |||
Revision as of 12:53, 8 June 2008
I re-added the func_id as it is a knowable value... is the old function being phased out and that why it was removed? Strife Onizuka 19:46, 31 January 2007 (PST)
LlListRandomize and the use of random vs pseudo random
Moved from User_talk:Strife_Onizuka#LlListRandomize_and_the_use_of_random_vs_pseudo_random Since you seem to have written and/or formatted a lot of the documentation on this I figure you'd be the best choice to answer this question. For LlListRandomize should all uses of random be replaced with pseudo random as appears to be the case with llFrand's mentioning of random number generation or should it be left as it is currently referencing random which is less accurate in my opinion. Gordon Wendt 13:31, 8 June 2008 (PDT)
- Sounds like the right thing to do but it's going to make the wording awkward and probably make people underestimate the randomness of the function. I'd recommend putting a comment in the notes section explaining that it isn't entirely random but should be adequate for most applications. -- Strife Onizuka 13:53, 8 June 2008 (PDT)