[Newbies] What's wrong with this statement?
Edgar J. De Cleene
edgardec2001 at yahoo.com.ar
Thu Jul 31 19:54:42 UTC 2008
El 7/31/08 4:41 PM, "Randal L. Schwartz" <merlyn at stonehenge.com> escribió:
>>>>>> "Timothy" == Timothy J Miller <tmiller at mitre.org> writes:
> Timothy> (2 raisedTo: 128) atRandom hex
> Timothy> Gives me results like:
> Timothy> B990880B732110000000000000000001
> Timothy> BFD3A7B37FA750000000000000000001
> Timothy> E0A6F981C14DF0000000000000000001
> Timothy> Somehow I'm not buying the lower-order bits on this one. :)
> It's pretty likely you have a 16-bit random generator, so there just aren't
> enough bits to make the low-order bits random in any way shape or form.
> Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
> <merlyn at stonehenge.com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
> Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
> See http://methodsandmessages.vox.com/ for Smalltalk and Seaside discussion
> Beginners mailing list
> Beginners at lists.squeakfoundation.org
But (2 raisedTo: 128) atRandom could genetate
49572205802560219958060582892667404289 hex also is wrong print
And I sorry to tell all this is a bug from 3.2 times.
I know because I working on 3.2 and 3.10 derivative images now.
More information about the Beginners