std.random suggestions (page 4)

On Tuesday, 16 September 2025 at 12:04:20 UTC, Denis Feklushkin wrote: > No need to make ambitious interfaces `std.internal.entropy` an internal module — not meant for user code. From a user’s perspective, there is nothing to interface with. > 1. Do not provide any access about entropy sources (I am about std.internal.entropy.EntropySource.tryAll and forceEntropySource). At the application programming level we usually have one source of true entropy. (If this is not so `tryAll` in particular exists so that the module can be used in a backwards compatible manner to replace the low entropy solutions previously used underneath by Phobos. We’ve tried replacing them with one solution per platform directly and people got upset. > At the application programming level we usually have one source of true entropy. At Phobos v2 level, we have no source of true entropy. An application using only that library has therefore none. At system level, there might be multiple options available — depending on factors like the OS version (like Linux kernels older than the `getrandom` syscall, or Windows that has two crypto APIs where the supported parameters have also changed over time) or the runtime environment (think of chroots without `/dev/`).

6 hours ago

Re: std.random suggestions

Posted by IchorDev
in reply to Dennis

Permalink

IchorDev

Posted in reply to Dennis

Permalink

On Sunday, 21 September 2025 at 11:54:22 UTC, Dennis wrote:

On Sunday, 21 September 2025 at 07:27:42 UTC, IchorDev wrote:

On Saturday, 20 September 2025 at 22:11:37 UTC, Dennis wrote:

On Saturday, 20 September 2025 at 18:42:03 UTC, IchorDev wrote:

Someone like you who can't understand the good parts of std.random's design has no place in suggesting changes to it.

Personal attacks are not allowed on this forum

What personal attack? There is no personal attack.

If you want an explanation, give that sentence to any LLM and it can tell you why it's a personal attack.

Do not insult my intelligence by implying that something with no comprehension of the context of our conversation understands what I said better than I do myself. An LLM is a clueless machine; we are people. You are fully capable of explaining your reasoning.

using more of this kind of language can get your post deleted.

Perhaps my statement was poorly worded, but I don't think that telling someone that they have no business trying to 'fix' something that they don't understand raises to the level of '[that] kind of language'; implying that I said something heinous about their character.

Denis Feklushkin has been very respectful so he's welcome to post suggestions for std.random.

And I will disagree when I think people are wrong.

On Monday, 22 September 2025 at 00:29:11 UTC, IchorDev wrote:

On Sunday, 21 September 2025 at 11:54:22 UTC, Dennis wrote:

If you say anything negative about someone's character then it is by definition a personal attack. You're attacking the person, not his argument.

And what you're doing now is the equivalent of punching someone and then saying "but it's not like he died, really so what's the problem?" I mean if the upper threshold for "civil discourse" is saying something "heinous" well that leaves pretty much everything on the table.

Forums