Hi, following the request for some improved documentation in my first e-mail (illustrated by some "case study" from a student's experience) I would like to propose to include the following class template RandomGeneratorInterval into the documentation of the random number library (a first draft, more explanations should be added; of course, names can be changed). It solves the task from my previous e-mail, and seems to me a very typical first use of the library: template <class bgt = boost::minstd_rand, class dt = boost::uniform_int<> > class RandomGeneratorInterval { public : typedef bgt base_generator_type; typedef dt distribution_type; typedef boost::variate_generator<base_generator_type, distribution_type> generator_type; typedef typename generator_type::result_type interval_type; typedef typename base_generator_type::result_type seed_type; RandomGeneratorInterval(interval_type min, interval_type max) : min(min), max(max) {} generator_type operator() (seed_type seed = 1) const { assert(seed != 0); return generator_type(base_generator_type(seed), distribution_type(min, max)); } private : const interval_type min, max; }; // An object rgi defined by "RandomGeneratorInterval rgi(min, max)" can create a random number generator g via g = rgi(seed). // Random numbers in the interval from min to max then are created with g(). // It is g() of type interval_type as well as min and max, while seed is of type seed_type; g itself is of type generator_type. // g is a model of a uniform random number generator (even a model of a pseudo-random number generator?!). Examples for usage are typedef Algorithms::RandomGeneratorInterval<> RI; RI rgi(10,20); RI::generator_type g1 = rgi(456); RI::generator_type g2 = rgi(); RI::generator_type g3 = rgi(1); assert(g1.min() == 10); assert(g1.max() == 20); assert(g1() == 10); assert(g1() == 18); assert(g1() == 12); assert(g2() == 10); assert(g2() == 10); assert(g2() == 16); assert(g3() == 10); assert(g3() == 10); assert(g3() == 16); // Attention: std::cout << g1() << " " << g1() results in implementation-defined behaviour (could be "10 18" or "18 12") ! (The last line seems a typical trap to me one has to be aware of, and thus it seems worth to be included.) Does the above code look reasonable?! Oliver