Subject:
|
Re: Allocation of member #'s
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Sat, 3 Jul 1999 04:24:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1032 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> [...]
> I personally don't think that the particular assignments of numbers really
> don't matter much (and would be perfectly happy letting things get assigned
> semi-randomly on a first-come-first-serve basis), but [...]
Whoops, I think I accidentally didn't not make a double-negative there.
--Todd
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Allocation of member #'s
|
| (...) Well, if they're still generally increasing slowly and the randomness comes from a small pool of lowest-available numbers rather than a large pool of, say, 32-bit integers, then that would certainly work too. (...) This is something I've been (...) (26 years ago, 3-Jul-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
112 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
