On Sep 13, 2015 11:10 PM, "Shiro Kawai" <xxxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:

> And this was my response:
>  
> Yeah, I agree that *requiring* randomized behavior is overkill.  It's just that we don't
> want to exclude it (i.e.. implying unspecified, but consistent order under the same 
> boundary condition).

I agree completely.

> btw, Go uses some internal "lightweight PRNG" for the purpose.

Ah, that makes a lot of sense since it should be cheap and, as you say, will flush out lots of errors quickly.