On Thursday, 20 March 2014 at 00:09:51 UTC, bearophile wrote:
Please don't use stuttering names like "std.random2.randomShuffle". "std.random2.shuffle" is enough.

I don't object to rewriting the names if there's a valid case for it, but it does seem to me to be important to try and match as much as possible the names that are already out there in std.random. The idea is to minimize the amount of rewriting anyone will have to do to adapt their code, and as far as I can tell where the contents of std.random2.adaptor are concerned (randomShuffle, randomCover, randomSample) it should require no rewriting at all.

Besides, while std.random2.adaptor.randomShuffle may be the fully-qualified name, in practice, no one will write all that out, so the redundancy is less bad; and in any case, as any magician will tell you, a shuffle is not necessarily random ;-)

I don't think the language is yet there. So I think currently this is not a good idea.

If the aim were to overwrite std.random, I would agree with you, but there is no need to do that. It's named std.random2 for a reason :-)

However, I do think that merging it into Phobos (assuming all other factors are OK) may have to be conditional on improvements in the available allocation strategies.

Reply via email to