[PD] [random] and seed value

[IOhannes m zmoelnig]

On 12/12/22 06:47, Alexandre Torres Porres wrote:
> The fact that you don't get different seeds is arguably something to
> mention in the help files.
> 
> One thing is that this is not a real feature as I see it, because you can't
> really control the number of [random] objects that were created before
> opening a particular patch.

this might be a problem in a live-coding context, but not otherwise 
(where you open your pre-built patch).

> On the other hand, I can't believe people do rely on a [random] object

i can. easily.
people are often not aware of their implicit assumptions.
and there are quite a lot of implicit assumptions when it comes to 
random generators (e.g. most people will turn away in disgust when it 
their random generator will produce a totally random series that happens 
to have the same number repeated; see https://xkcd.com/221/)

in the actual context of [random] (which i've never seen repeat a random 
number "too often"), I think there are definitely pieces out there where 
the composer expects the "random" piece to sound like "that", and which 
will no longer be true if [random] uses different seeds for each instance).


> giving the same output every time you open the patch. We have it in the
> documentation that using 'seed' is what you need for this and this is the
> only thing that can actually be done to guarantee the same sequence.


yes.
(note, that i'm definitely not advocating to keep the fixed seed for 
[random].)

> I don't think this will break anything but worst case scenario, we can have
> those 'compatibilty flags' IOhaness is not much a fan of :)

indeed (both that we can have one; and that i'm not a fan thereof)

gmadsr
IOhannes