Ranges and random numbers -- again

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 00:16:24 Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
> On 06/18/2013 12:10 AM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> > What were the reasons it was not accepted?
> 
> I think mostly that, as a patch to std.random, it was a breaking change. 
> There was a proposal to make a std.random2 but that would have been a
> rather more major piece of work :-(

Yeah. Changing std.random to use reference types would be a breaking change 
unless you just created new classes for everything. It would just be cleaner 
to do std.random2 instead. But that means that someone has to take the time to 
prepare it for the review queue. It would probably be a pretty easy sell 
though, since it can probably stay mostly the same aside from the struct -> 
class change (though at that point, we might as well take the opportunity to 
make sure that anything else that should be redesigned about it gets 
redesigned appropriately).

- Jonathan M Davis