What's better than using if() to tame rand()?

Okay, folks, I've got my OOP back on track. :)
Well I'm making a simple number guessing program into OOP, to make my head ache. And well, I decided to use rand(), (well actually rand() % 100 as suggested by an article) and if() to tame it so it can fit between 1 and 100. Here is the code:

Code:

---

void CNumber::getRand()
{
        int randNum;
        srand(time(NULL));
        randNum = rand() % 100;
        if ((randNum < 1) || (randNum > 100))
        {
                int equalRand(randNum);
        }
        else
        {
                getRand();
        }
}

---

Yes, I know. Everyone hates recursive functions. And in a sense this could go on for days. But the program loads and then crashes. Because of this (I just added this bit, and now it crashes.).

There must be a better way of doing this. What is it?

Thanks. :)

>>if ((randNum < 1) || (randNum > 100))
Switch up those greater than and less than signs. Otherwise you'll get an infinite loop and run outta stack space.

>>int equalRand(randNum);
Why does this even compile?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are trying to do, but didn't you mean to write:

Code:

---

if ((randNum > 1) && (randNum < 100))
...

---

Heh. That's the first thing I pointed out in my post.

The code I showed was just a snippet, you could've also noticed that I never declared CNumber, as I didn't post it (I did really, but just didn't post it). :)

Okay, so I switched up the || and < >(it's now && and > <). But now it's telling me the number is less than 0. Every time.

O_o

rand( ) % 100 will return a value 0-99, so you want to add 1. Also, use >= and <=.

Edit:
My postcount is now 'leet'!!!!!

It still says that 0 is too high. So it's either a negative number, or a number that doesn't exist. :p

Gosh. Isn't there a better way?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by XSquared


>>int equalRand(randNum);
Why does this even compile?

---

That is a great question -- it's halfway between a prototype and a function call -- the int prevents it from being legal syntax for a call, and the lack of a type specified for randNum prevents it from being legal syntax for a prototype. It should NOT compile.

I've noticed MSVC 6.0 will compile functions with no return type. I guess it assumes void.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cat
That is a great question -- it's halfway between a prototype and a function call -- the int prevents it from being legal syntax for a call, and the lack of a type specified for randNum prevents it from being legal syntax for a prototype. It should NOT compile.

---

Whats wrong with it? It initializes the equalRand integer with the value of the randNum integer.

You know, like...

int::int(int)

if it were an object :)


edit: is rand()? bugged that it sometimes returns outbound random numbers or why does he test the results?

>>> why does he test the results?

As salem pointed out before, his "taming" is completely superfluous.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by darksaidin
Whats wrong with it? It initializes the equalRand integer with the value of the randNum integer.

---

OK, I don't know what is worse, pretending I didn't know that or admitting I forgot.

Lol, I guess my excuse will be that I posted that at 2:30 AM :D

You're completely correct, it is a legal statement.