> On Nov 30, 2017, at 4:08 PM, Jonathan Hull <jh...@gbis.com> wrote:
>
>
>> On Nov 30, 2017, at 1:58 PM, Dave DeLong <sw...@davedelong.com
>> <mailto:sw...@davedelong.com>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 30, 2017, at 2:48 PM, Jonathan Hull via swift-evolution
>>> <swift-evolution@swift.org <mailto:swift-evolution@swift.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I would personally go with:
>>>
>>> Int.random //Returns a random Int
>>
>> “Type.random” is so rarely used as to not be worth the addition, IMO. If you
>> really need a random element from the *entire* domain, then I think you
>> should have to manually create the ClosedRange<T> yourself.
>
> What evidence do you have that this will not be used often? There are many
> types which aren’t comparable, and thus can’t have a ClosedRange. Bool, for
> example, would definitely require Bool.Random. I certainly use the full
> range of UInt and UInt8 on a regular basis (less so with Int).
Bool doesn’t necessarily need “Bool.random”. You just just as easily do “[true,
false].random()”
As for evidence… my own experience. Other than small-value types (like Bool),
it is *exceptionally* rare to come across a situation where you need a random
from the entire range. Random colors are interesting, but are rare because
they can’t guarantee design aesthetic. Random Dates are nonsensical. Random
Ints are maybe useful, but again, you almost always need a random Int from a
range of possible values.
>
> I think it is important to have Type.random as the base because there are
> many types which would conform (not just Int & Double). For example, I might
> have an enum which returns a random case from MyEnum.random. How would you
> do that if random(in:) was the required base?
I actually don’t think there should be a static “random()” method. I think it
should be a member function, not a type function.
As for picking a random enum, see the previous bit about picking a random bool.
And that will get even easier once we get the patch where enums have a static
value listing all their cases, such as “CardSuits.allValues.random()”.
>
>
>>
>>> Int.random(in: ClosedRange<Int>) //Works for Comparable types. Gives a
>>> result from the closed range. Closed Range is never empty.
>>
>> This is redundant. In order to pick a random element, you’re saying I should
>> have to do “Int.random(0 ..< 10)”? The redundancy here is that I have to
>> specify Int twice: once for the “.random” call, and again for the type of
>> the range. We can do better than that.
>
> You didn’t have to specify it twice. You used integer literals for the
> range, which you could also do for Double or CGFloat. Also, I am proposing
> that we require a closed range, which would mean you would have to do
> Int.random(0…9). Otherwise we have to deal with ranges which are possibly
> empty.
“0…9.random()” makes more sense to me than “Int.random(in: 0…9)". It makes it
easier to change the type, and it doesn’t require me to know a priori the type
of the range I’m dealing with.
Dave
_______________________________________________
swift-evolution mailing list
swift-evolution@swift.org
https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
