Warp wrote.

>  How about just using rand()? It's easier, faster and cleaner. You can also
>use several random number streams with it.

        Yes, rand() is much easier, much faster, and MUCH cleaner than
the mess I wrote.  I'll probably keep using rand().  :-)
        The only reason I posted it is because (A) some weird pov-er
out there might look at it and get inspired to some weird idea .,.. and
(b) some people here a few months ago were complaining about rand() not
being "random" enough and the code I posted *should* be *very* (pseudo)
random.


Pete

Post a reply to this message