Dong-hee Na <donghee...@python.org> added the comment:
To explain my thought, > Not every one line expression needs to be a function in a library. > `bool(getrandbits(1))` is self-explanatory enough, Yeah, I agree with the point of view, it might be enough. But considering the popularity of the Python language and there is a lot of new people who enter the programming world with Python for their own purpose so there are a lot of people who are not familiar with the concept of bits. So I thought that the random module can become more friendly for those people. And for example, Java/Scala already provides those high-level APIs (and there is a similar proposal at Go also: https://github.com/golang/go/issues/23804). but it does not mean that Python should provide the same APIs. And I know that we also have to consider the maintenance cost and the principle of library scope. Anyway, this is the reason I proposed this feature and I want to hear the opinion from other core-devs :) please let me know if I miss something or historical issue. Enjoy your weekend. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue44400> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
