I tend to agree with Arek. I've been bitten multiple times, including once yesterday, because shuffle works in place, when I really expect a sorted()-like behavior for a standalone function like that.
Mahmoud https://github.com/mahmoud http://sedimental.org On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 6:59 PM, Arek Bulski <arek.bul...@gmail.com> wrote: > shuffled() should be in the random module, of course. I dont suggest a > builtin. Although now that you mentioned it, I could go for that too. > > There are usage cases where its heavily used, in randomized testing for > example. I am sure that there are also other domains where randomization of > lists is used. > > Another reason to put it there is that using shuffle is inconvenient. The > fact that I CAN write it myself doesnt mean that it doesnt belong in the > standard library. > > Implementing this in pure python wont take a lot of work. > > pozdrawiam, > Arkadiusz Bulski > > > _______________________________________________ > Python-ideas mailing list > Python-ideas@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas > Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ >
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
