(j3.2006) RANDOM_INIT question

[Malcolm Cohen]

<<<
  Since ?repeatable?  can be used to describe whether a generator would 
generate the same sequence given a particular starting seed,  there is 
possibility of confusion.
>>>>

There is no confusion in the standard.

The actual words in the standard
(a) explicitly specify that this is a pseudo-random number generator, not a 
(scare quotes) "true random" generator;
(b) explicitly specify that a particular seed, (actual quote) "shall result 
in the same sequence of pseudorandom numbers being generated";
(c) explicitly specify that REPEATABLE=.FALSE. merely sets the seed (actual 
quote) "to a processor-dependent, unpredictably different value on each 
call".

There is no ambiguity here!

<<<
  A Note to say that there is only one generator, and we don?t mean that 
usage of ?repeatable?,  might be clarifying.
>>>

We have Already Fully Specified *Precisely* what the effect of the *Argument 
Whose Name Is "REPEATABLE"* is.

In fact we do not use the word "repeatable" ***ANYWHERE IN THE ENTIRE 
STANDARD***.  Not even once.  Not here, and not anywhere else either.  The 
argument name is REPEATABLE, that's it.  And I repeat, the semantics are 
Fully Specified.

Such a note, following the text which actually Specifies The Semantics 
Normatively, would not only be completely unnecessary but also 
counter-productive.  One might as well word it as "You might think that you 
can ignore the semantics we've just specified, because you went into an 
entire imaginary world based on the spelling of the argument name, but you 
would be wrong."

There is simply No Case To Answer here.

Grumpily,
-- 
..............................The Editor.