Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>   No, I disagree with the idea that we should simply not support long seeds
> for the simple reason that deciding on the handiest syntax is not immediately
> obvious. I would certainly want access to the whole RNG even if doing so
> would require writing a few more characters.

.... and me, I'd consider a higher-quality RNG too important to waste time on
special syntax whose sole *real* benefit would be the ability to turn POV-Ray
into a strong cryptographic application or a poker game engine.

BTW, not only users, but also other parts of POV-Ray could benefit from a good
RNG. Subsurface scattering, for instance, currently suffers dearly from the
lack of a good random number source.

You can always wreck your brain on that super-duper-seeding syntax in a later
increment.

I'm not saying "never ever support it" - all I'm saying is "it's not nearly
important enough to waste time on it right now".

Post a reply to this message