No, it's pseudorandom, but for most applications that's good enough.

Also, higher values of n always give more reliable results, statistically.

++ muba
.. And in addition to that, i will say also look at srand and some CPAN modules like:
Math::TrulyRandom,
Math::Random::MT::Perl,
Math::Random::Secure

...what about using this?

#!/usr/bin/perl

use strict;
use warnings;

open(RANDOM, "<", "/dev/random") || die $!;
read(RANDOM, $_, 4);
close RANDOM;
my $seed = unpack("L", $_);
print $seed . qq(\n);
srand($seed);
# do stuff...


[download]

Regards, Karl

«The Crux of the Biscuit is the Apostrophe»

From Pseudorandom:

A pseudorandom process is a process that appears to be random but is not. Pseudorandom sequences typically exhibit statistical randomness while being generated by an entirely deterministic causal process.

So yes, the “statistical randomness” guarantees that there is an equal probability of choosing either value.

I notice that it is very rare for me to get 5 heads and 5 tails.

Well, the probability of getting 5 heads in a row followed by 5 tails in a row is 1/1024. But the probability that 10 rolls will result in 5 heads and 5 tails (in any order) is (10!/5!5!)/1024 = 0.246 or approx. 25%, so this should happen around once in every 4 runs of the simulation.

Is there a better way to do this?

Don’t call a sub using the & prefix:

my $value = &coin_toss;
[download]

This syntax is used for overriding prototypes, and should be avoided unless you have a good reason to use it. Prefer:

my $value = coin_toss();
[download]

Hope that helps,

Overriding prototypes is not all it does!

sub foo { print "Called foo(" . join(',', @_) . ")\n"; }
sub bar { 
    print "Called bar(" . join(',', @_) . ")\n"; 
    print "foo(); : ";
    foo();
    print "&foo; : ";
    &foo;
}
bar(1,2,3);
[download]

Jenda
Enoch was right!
Enjoy the last years of Rome.

Also don't forget &foo() which overrides prototypes without the effect of passing along the caller's @_.

perl -E'sub Monkey::do{say$_,for@_,do{($monkey=[caller(0)]->[3])=~s{::}{ }and$monkey}}"Monkey say"->Monkey::do'

A simple test:

my $sum = 0;
for( 1..10_000_000 ) { 
    $sum++ if coin_toss() eq 'heads';
}

print $sum;
[download]

The result I got was 5,000,938, meaning heads happened 50.01% of the time. Seems pretty reasonable.

Most people's perceptions of randomness are notoriously faulty. For example, they seriously underestimate the number of times repeated numbers will appear in a sequence.

One suggestion: I think it is clearer to use int() to specify that you want a random integer:

    my $index = int rand @coin;
    return $coin[ $index ];
[download]

As your code is written, you are using a floating point number as the array index. This works (because it is converted to integer), but it is a little unusual. You wouldn't write  $array[1.5]