[Sven R. Kunze <srku...@mail.de>]
> ...
> He already convinced some people. Just not some venerable Python devs, which
> doesn't necessarily mean something at all.
>
> Their response: "Oh, I don't need it, let's close it."
> Arek: "But I need it."
>
> So, who's right now?
By default, the venerable Python devs ;-)
As I said in my comments on the issue report, I searched through all
my code for instances of `shuffle()`, and didn't find any that could
be improved by `shuffled()`. Nor could I dream up a compelling use
case. So it wasn't just a knee-jerk "oh, I don't need it", the "I
don't need it" was the outcome of some research and thought.
In contrast, the original request was a bare "But I need it", without
so much as a single concrete use case to justify it ("testing" is an
application area, not a concrete use case - I've made extensive use of
shuffling in testing too, but - as I said - found no existing code
where `shuffled()` would have helped).
In the absence of compelling concrete use cases, new ideas have
approximately no chance of being adopted. Otherwise the language &
libraries bloat in counterproductive ways. Just ask any venerable
Python dev ;-)
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
