[Issue 7067] std.random.RandomSample and RandomCover are poorly designed

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7067 Iain Buclaw changed: What|Removed |Added Priority|P2 |P3 --

[Issue 7067] std.random.RandomSample and RandomCover are poorly designed

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7067 Nathan S. changed: What|Removed |Added See Also||https://issues.dlang.org/sh |

[Issue 7067] std.random.RandomSample and RandomCover are poorly designed

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7067 Andrei Alexandrescu changed: What|Removed |Added Keywords||bootcamp --

[Issue 7067] std.random.RandomSample and RandomCover are poorly designed

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7067 Ivan Kazmenko ga...@mail.ru changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ga...@mail.ru --

[Issue 7067] std.random.RandomSample and RandomCover are poorly designed

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7067 --- Comment #23 from Joseph Rushton Wakeling joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net --- @Martin @Jens: sorry for radio silence on this. It's a busy period, and I recently moved to a new apartment where I still don't have home internet. I don't think that

[Issue 7067] std.random.RandomSample and RandomCover are poorly designed

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7067 --- Comment #22 from jens.k.muel...@gmx.de --- We should try out Martin's idea. I'll do it but I'd like to write some tests first. Joseph you mentioned several suprizes with the current design. I'd like to create some tests for those. Can you give

[Issue 7067] std.random.RandomSample and RandomCover are poorly designed

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7067 --- Comment #21 from Martin Nowak c...@dawg.eu --- (In reply to Joseph Rushton Wakeling from comment #20) I guess what I don't like about this solution is that it requires the user to take responsibility for generating the RNG (or wrapper-of-RNG) as

[Issue 7067] std.random.RandomSample and RandomCover are poorly designed

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7067 --- Comment #20 from Joseph Rushton Wakeling joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net --- (In reply to Martin Nowak from comment #19) We had a talk about this during the 2nd D meetup in Berlin. One remaining question was how to deal with memory management when

[Issue 7067] std.random.RandomSample and RandomCover are poorly designed

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=7067 Martin Nowak c...@dawg.eu changed: What|Removed |Added CC||c...@dawg.eu --- Comment #19 from

[Issue 7067] std.random.RandomSample and RandomCover are poorly designed

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7067 --- Comment #18 from github-bugzi...@puremagic.com 2013-08-29 00:34:46 PDT --- Commit pushed to master at https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/phobos

[Issue 7067] std.random.RandomSample and RandomCover are poorly designed

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7067 Joseph Rushton Wakeling joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Issue 7067] std.random.RandomSample and RandomCover are poorly designed

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7067 --- Comment #15 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2013-06-20 16:13:04 PDT --- (In reply to comment #14) It's putting a sticking plaster on a gaping wound, Why do you/we care so much for breaking backwards compatibility with something that is so

[Issue 7067] std.random.RandomSample and RandomCover are poorly designed

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7067 --- Comment #16 from Joseph Rushton Wakeling joseph.wakel...@webdrake.net 2013-06-20 16:27:56 PDT --- (In reply to comment #15) Why do you/we care so much for breaking backwards compatibility with something that is so broken? If you let it

[Issue 7067] std.random.RandomSample and RandomCover are poorly designed

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7067 --- Comment #12 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2012-09-27 04:46:57 PDT --- (In reply to comment #10) then std.random should be deprecated and std.random2 should replace it in the long run. I believe this is the best solution (but far from

[Issue 7067] std.random.RandomSample and RandomCover are poorly designed

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7067 monarchdo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||monarchdo...@gmail.com ---

[Issue 7067] std.random.RandomSample and RandomCover are poorly designed

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7067 jens.k.muel...@gmx.de changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jens.k.muel...@gmx.de ---

[Issue 7067] std.random.RandomSample and RandomCover are poorly designed

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7067 Dmitry Olshansky dmitry.o...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Issue 7067] std.random.RandomSample and RandomCover are poorly designed

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7067 Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Issue 7067] std.random.RandomSample and RandomCover are poorly designed

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7067 Bernard Helyer blood.of.l...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Issue 7067] std.random.RandomSample and RandomCover are poorly designed

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7067 Alex R�nne Petersen xtzgzo...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Issue 7067] std.random.RandomSample and RandomCover are poorly designed

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7067 --- Comment #4 from Andrei Alexandrescu and...@metalanguage.com 2011-12-06 07:53:28 PST --- Turn random generators into final classes? We have backward compatibility to worry about. -- Configure issuemail:

[Issue 7067] std.random.RandomSample and RandomCover are poorly designed

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7067 --- Comment #5 from Vladimir Panteleev thecybersha...@gmail.com 2011-12-06 08:04:49 PST --- The disadvantages of breaking backwards compatibility need to be considered on a case-by-case basis. I think that turning RNGs into reference types has

[Issue 7067] std.random.RandomSample and RandomCover are poorly designed

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7067 --- Comment #6 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2011-12-06 09:49:20 PST --- (In reply to comment #5) The biggest problem is intentional usage of value semantics (it would transparently turn into reference semantics). I suggest to ignore such

[Issue 7067] std.random.RandomSample and RandomCover are poorly designed

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7067 bearophile_h...@eml.cc changed: What|Removed |Added CC||bearophile_h...@eml.cc ---

[Issue 7067] std.random.RandomSample and RandomCover are poorly designed

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7067 --- Comment #2 from Andrei Alexandrescu and...@metalanguage.com 2011-12-05 21:28:32 PST --- (In reply to comment #0) The following tests will always fail: int[] a = [ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ]; assert(!equal(randomCover(a,

[Issue 7067] std.random.RandomSample and RandomCover are poorly designed

http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7067 --- Comment #3 from bearophile_h...@eml.cc 2011-12-05 23:53:48 PST --- (In reply to comment #2) The problem with taking a random generator by reference is that it then needs to be escaped. So people would be quite surprised to see that: