➜
This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub,
and is currently read-only.
For more information,
see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.
Created on 2016-09-06 02:35 by steven.daprano, last changed 2022-04-11 14:58 by admin. This issue is now closed.
| Messages (3) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| msg274504 - (view) | Author: Steven D'Aprano (steven.daprano) *  |
Date: 2016-09-06 02:35 | |
An occasionally requested feature is for a shuffled() function, related to the in-place random.shuffle() as sorted() is to list.sort(). See the latest example: https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-ideas/2016-September/042096.html |
|||
| msg274506 - (view) | Author: Tim Peters (tim.peters) * |
Date: 2016-09-06 02:57 | |
I'm at best -0 on the idea: very easy to get the effect without it, and hard to imagine it's needed frequently. `sorted()` is also very easy to mimic, but is used often by all sorts of code. For example, to display output in a `for key in sorted(dict):` loop, or to create a throwaway sorted list for testing, like: assert data2[low: high] == sorted(data[low: high]) In my own code, I find hundreds of uses of `sorted()`, but only a few dozen of `random.shuffle()`, and in none of the latter cases would `shuffled()` have been useful. |
|||
| msg274507 - (view) | Author: Raymond Hettinger (rhettinger) * |
Date: 2016-09-06 03:03 | |
Sorry Steven, I concur with Tim and am going to reject this one. |
|||
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2022-04-11 14:58:35 | admin | set | github: 72151 |
| 2016-09-06 03:03:44 | rhettinger | set | status: open -> closed resolution: rejected messages: + msg274507 |
| 2016-09-06 02:57:31 | tim.peters | set | nosy:
+ tim.peters messages: + msg274506 type: enhancement stage: needs patch |
| 2016-09-06 02:35:12 | steven.daprano | create | |