On Thu, Jul 06, 2006 at 08:21:18PM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-07-06 at 19:05 +0100, Chris Lightfoot wrote:
>
> > I don't think that would be a good idea for Ian's
> > application, since it would mean that his cleanup query
> > could be multiple times in a given second if there were
> > several incoming connections then
>
> > + srand(time(NULL));
> > + seeded = 1;
>
> You can have the same thing, since the new connection will be in a new
> process. Or not?
ha! quite right (well, subsequent calls in the same
connection will typically give different results, but yes,
it should use a better seed than that).
--
``... but what you must never forget is that every one of these figures
comes in the first instance from the [village watchman] who just puts
down whatever he damn pleases.'' (Josiah Stamp on government statistics)
