<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 8:56 AM, Ryan Newton <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rrnewton@gmail.com">rrnewton@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div><br></div><div>I'm the maintainer of random. If people could decide on what the alternative name would be we could put it through the library proposal process. It seems that one problem at this moment is the lack of a single, clear "right" answer. Replacing one debatable not-quite-right choice with another may not be satisfying ;-).</div>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>The entire premise of that discussion seems quite ridiculous. All that renaming the modules will achieve is the breakage of several hundred packages. The roots of the module naming hierarchy - Control, Data, System, and so on - are so muddled and inconsistently used that the best advice you could give to people who raise this topic is to pretend those roots are simply not there.</div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div>My proposal for this has been to use AES based crypto-prng.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>
We'd be better off if you could seek consensus from PRNG maintainers on a fixed-up Random class before attacking this problem, so that we'd have a better chance of achieving cross-package compatibility.</div></div>