-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost- bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Chad Nelson Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 10:23 PM To: boost@lists.boost.org Subject: Re: [boost] [xint] Boost.XInt formal review
<snip>
As long as I'm asking, perhaps the ability to provide a special-purpose generator of our own design?
You already can. :-) The random.hpp classes are there only for convenience. In all of the few functions that use a random generator, you can substitute any Boost.Random generator class, or any other class that has a similar interface. If you've got specialized random-number- generating hardware, the code will happily work with it, with nothing extra but a simple interface class. </snip>
If I might make a suggestion, the XInt library interface could be simplified by removing all notions of RNG quality (strong, random, etc.) and become more in line with the goal of providing a POD-like data type. On an abstract [carefully avoiding 'generic'] level, an RNG is an RNG is an RNG. One of the problems I see with syntactic candy like 'strong_random_generator' is that it implies the generated values are both cryptographically acceptable and actually random (and verified by the library). IIUC, there is nothing in the library that attempts to verify either. IMHO, the XInt library should make no pretense wrt RNG quality - let the user specify the RNG or use the default (as is now provided by default_random_generator). Dick Bridges Western Digital The opinions and data in this missive are my own and do not necessarily represent the positions, strategies, or opinions of Western Digital.