given the ease of using Ruby, I wonder whether we will have rand(m, n)
in
the future…
right now, we need to use rand(range) + start
and it can cause a bug that can otherwise be avoided if we have rand(m,
n)
for the clarity.
On 9/15/07, kendear [email protected] wrote:
given the ease of using Ruby, I wonder whether we will have rand(m, n) in
the future…right now, we need to use rand(range) + start
and it can cause a bug that can otherwise be avoided if we have rand(m, n)
for the clarity.
Why not instead suggest rand(m…n)? That would, I think, be more
readable than rand(m, n).
-austin
On 9/15/07, Austin Z. [email protected] wrote:
readable than rand(m, n).
But would that draw discrete or continuous random numbers?
Hadley
On 15.09.2007 17:39, hadley wickham wrote:
readable than rand(m, n).
But would that draw discrete or continuous random numbers?
That question actually applies to both variants. 
The rule could probably be, if at least one of the two numbers is non
int (i.e. float) then a “continuous” range is used. Alternatively we
can define another function that does this (“frand” or “randf”).
Btw, currently if you use a float as single parameter you still get
integers back as far as I can see.
Kind regards
robert