Random of zero

[miscdas at boxfrog.com]

Shari writes:
{snip}
> The assumption that random(0) would obviously be 0 was made based on 
> general principles.  Not on Metatalk itself.  I did not expect to have to 
> look up what would seem to be a simple function. 
> 
> Shari C
> -- 
=============
Unless you are either a developer of the language or extremely well versed 
in its functions, assuming any function in a language would behave as a 
similarly named function from another language or context is a most 
egregious error. 

miscdas