Simple "Random int between two numbers" method

[Botre]

	public static int rndmInt(boolean allowMinimum, int minimum, int maximum, boolean allowMaximum) {
		int min = minimum + (allowMinimum ? 0 : 1);
		int max = maximum  + (allowMaximum ? 1 : 0);
		return new Random().nextInt(max - min) + min;
	}

^{_{^it's "exclusive" not "exlusive".}}

Edited September 10, 2014 by Botrepreneur

[thepecher]

Wouldn't MethodProvider.random(int,int) do the same. If you don't want to allow max or min, you reduce the interval?

[Botre]

Wouldn't MethodProvider.random(int,int) do the same. If you don't want to allow max or min, you reduce the interval?

 

Yep, this is to help people understand some of the mechanics behind such methods.

I prefer booleans to include / exclude limits, not the most type-friendly way to go, but improves the readability imo.

[Swizzbeat]

If you really want people to learn from this you probably should use the words exclusive and inclusive instead of allowed.

[Mysteryy]

If you really want people to learn from this you probably should use the words exclusive and inclusive instead of allowed.

If you look at his comments, they say inclusive and exclusive. The way he did it is better than saying only inclusive and exclusive, because now people can look at his comments and make the connection to the method itsself. From that they can get that allow means inclusive and allow' would be non inclusive.

[Botre]

If you really want people to learn from this you probably should use the words exclusive and inclusive instead of allowed.

 

I actually used includeMin and excludeMax as argument names first.

But then I though "allow" would be more comprehensible. Meh, not a huge difference anyways.

[Swizzbeat]

If you look at his comments, they say inclusive and exclusive. The way he did it is better than saying only inclusive and exclusive, because now people can look at his comments and make the connection to the method itsself. From that they can get that allow means inclusive and allow' would be non inclusive.

How are people supposed to learn if you have to dumb down simple vocab words?

[Botre]

How are people supposed to learn if you have to dumb down simple vocab words?

 

Dumb -> less dumb -> almost smart -> smart.

You have to start somewhere ^^

[Swizzbeat]

Dumb -> less dumb -> almost smart -> smart.

You have to start somewhere ^^

An autistic kid has basic knowledge of simple prefixes.

[Dog_]

An autistic kid has basic knowledge of simple prefixes.

Questionable.

[Mysteryy]

How are people supposed to learn if you have to dumb down simple vocab words?

By your logic we don't even need dictionaries. Why should we ever look at a dictionary? Why not just magically know every word ever naturally?

We need to learn somewhere, typically by making relations, which is exactly what he did.

[Swizzbeat]

Questionable.

asexual gtfo

 

By your logic we don't even need dictionaries. Why should we ever look at a dictionary? Why not just magically know every word ever naturally?

We need to learn somewhere, typically by making relations, which is exactly what he did.

That is probably the worst comparison to this topic you could have ever came up with.

 

Jeez, all I do is make a logical suggestion and everyone goes ape shit.

[Dog_]

asexual gtfo

 

That is probably the worst comparison to this topic you could have ever came up with.

 

Jeez, all I do is make a logical suggestion and everyone goes ape shit.

@wyd