If so, then I would suggest than each list provides a .shuffle method as
well (just as sorted/sort does).
On 06.09.2016 06:34, 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.
Mahmoud
https://github.com/mahmoud
http://sedimental.org
On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 6:59 PM, Arek Bulski <arek.bul...@gmail.com
<mailto: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 <mailto:Python-ideas@python.org>
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
<https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas>
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
<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/
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
