@barodapride

// Returns a random float between 0 and 1.0f (inclusive)

float getRandomFloat() { return static_cast(GetRandomValue(0, INT_MAX)) / static_cast(INT_MAX); }

// Returns a random float between min and max (inclusive)

 float getRandomFloat(float min, float max) { return min + (max - min) * getRandomFloat(); } 

1. In the first getRandomFloat(), the divisor should be (INTMAX+1) since that is the size of the range. A safe way to get that is to use (INTMAX + 1.0f) though. The result is never 1.0, so the inclusive claim is incorrect.

2. I don't understand the use of the same name for both functions.

3. As well as I can determine, static_cast is a C++ feature and I don't understand its employment here even so.

A consideration/concern has to do with the desired/understood granularity of the first result. That is, what is the desired epsilon between adjacent possible values, since it is no longer simply "1". Is it important to know that it's 1.0/(INTMAX+1.0) under the assumption that float precision is that good? That's a relevant question in the second form as well, but even more difficult to characterize. I am assuming that some degree of smoothness is wanted.

In any event, I concur with @raysan5 that there should be no attempt to have this as a companion of raylib's GetRandomValue().

@barodapride

// Returns a random float between 0 and 1.0f (inclusive)

float getRandomFloat() { return static_cast(GetRandomValue(0, INT_MAX)) / static_cast(INT_MAX); }

// Returns a random float between min and max (inclusive)

 float getRandomFloat(float min, float max) { return min + (max - min) * getRandomFloat(); } 

1. In the first getRandomFloat(), the divisor should be (INTMAX+1) since that is the size of the range. A safe way to get that is to use (INTMAX + 1.0f) though. The result is never 1.0, so the inclusive claim is incorrect.
2. I don't understand the use of the same name for both functions.
3. As well as I can determine, static_cast is a C++ feature and I don't understand its employment here even so.

A consideration/concern has to do with the desired/understood granularity of the first result. That is, what is the desired epsilon between adjacent possible values, since it is no longer simply "1". Is it important to know that it's 1.0/(INTMAX+1.0) under the assumption that float precision is that good? That's a relevant question in the second form as well, but even more difficult to characterize. I am assuming that some degree of smoothness is wanted.

In any event, I concur with @raysan5 that there should be no attempt to have this as a companion of raylib's GetRandomValue().

I think it's basically correct as it is - for example if GetRandomValue(0, 10) returns 10 (just using 10 instead of INT_MAX for ease of reading) it would cast to a float 10.0f and divide by a float 10.0f which would result in a 1.0f.

In any case it's just an idea of how to implement it, maybe it could use one less static cast or the naming of the functions can be different but if it's not going to be accepted it doesn't matter.

I am just coming from Unity where I used Random.value all the time to quickly get a random float from 0f - 1f. And there are also other convenience methods to get floats in a given range. But maybe in c++ world people prefer to have their own library of such things.