I would prefer to see this as new opcodes rand31, rand31h, and rand31iin
case someday we have rand63, rand63h, and rand63i.

-----Original Message-----
From: jpff@maths.bath.ac.uk 
To: csound@maths.ex.ac.uk 
Date: Tuesday, November 10, 1998 7:46 AM
Subject: Randon numbers again


>Message written at 9 Nov 1998 23:23:49 +0000
>
>There has in the past been concern about the quality of the random
>number generator used in the opcodes rand, randh and randi (which is
>totally different from the one used in the other noise opcodes by the
>way).  Clearly to change it would or could break old orchestras which
>is something I am trying to avoid.  I have implemented a rand2, rand2h
>and rand2i set of opcodes which use a full 31 bit generator.
>
>But... is that what is needed or would you prefer to see this as an
>optional argument to the opcode rather than a new opcode?  Or not at
>all?  I would like to see this in the next release, or the idea
>squashed as it has been hanging around for a long time.
>
>==John