> On 11 Oct 2017, at 18:01, Kevin Nattinger <sw...@nattinger.net> wrote:
>
> IMO, if we have the extensions on Int(eger)/Float(ingPoint)/Array
> (RandomAccessSequence?), they should just be for convenience and with a sane
> default RNG*, and users that need more should just use methods on the RNGs
> directly.
>
> *: I don't think the default necessarily needs to be a CSRNG; if there's a
> fast one, fine. Are we building a padded room for the least competent
> engineer or a tool for the average to good engineer to use efficiently?
I don’t disagree that there should be a *default* RNG. I’m just pointing out
that there are advantages to being able to override the default, and Swift has
language features that allow you to do so without impacting the simplicity of
the default version. I do not understand why, if you are going to have
init(randomInRange: Countable{Closed}Range<Int>)
you would be against also having
init(randomInRange: Countable{Closed}Range<Int>, ing: RNG)
as well. It’s both convenient and flexible.
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
