Yet another pseudo-random number generator

[Scott Schwartz]

In article <9653 at smoke.BRL.MIL>, gwyn at smoke (Doug Gwyn ) writes:
>Virtually all PRNG schemes in common use have provable
>statistical behavior.  That doesn't mean they're always
>suitable.  In fact I'm not enthised about that CACM article.

Didn't the article state that the generators they talked about
were to be considered a lower bound in quality?  In other words,
there is now no excuse to use a |worse| PRNG than the ones in the
article.
-- 
Scott Schwartz		<schwartz at shire.cs.psu.edu>