[Newbies] What's wrong with this statement?

[Edgar J. De Cleene]

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
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners

But (2 raisedTo: 128) atRandom could genetate
49572205802560219958060582892667404289

and 
49572205802560219958060582892667404289 hex also is wrong print
 '254B42724A9684000000000000000001'

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.

Edgar