On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 09:34:05PM -0700, Mahmoud Hashemi wrote: > 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.
*shrug* And if random.shuffle() returned a new list, other people would be bitten because they expected it to be in-place. You can't please everyone. In any case, the tracker item I opened has already been closed by the module maintainer Raymond Hettinger. I don't intend to pursue this, but if anyone wishes to change his mind, you will need: - good use-cases for the new function; - evidence that this is common enough to justify; - and (optional, but recommended) an actual patch. If you (generic "you", not Mahmoud or Arek specifically) aren't volunteering to do the work yourself, the barrier to convince somebody else to do it is much higher. One moderately stong piece of evidence would be if this function is widely available in third-party libraries and other languages. That is evidence that this is common enough that people are reinventing the wheel, and therefore we should consider adding a standard wheel. But I don't have the time (or that much interest) to do this, but I encourage others to do their homework if they want to make a strong case for this function. -- Steve _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
