I noticed that the random library does not provide `random.randbool()`.
Generating bool value is quite common in the use-case when we generated faked data
(unittest, machine learning training, etc)

Somebody can say write your own library but it's too common use-case and in physically some isolated environments is hard to use 3rd party library.

Since the bool value is the built-in type of python, I think that is very useful when we provide this function.

I would like to get opinions from Raymond and then proceed with this issue.

Here is the candidate implementation:

def randbool():
    return bool(getrandbits(1))

Not every one line expression needs to be a function in a library. `bool(getrandbits(1))` is self-explanatory enough, and it is doubtful that any implementation would be faster.

Using getrandbits(1) to return 0 or 1 is fine; if you need a bool, call bool on the result.

Aside: the name getrandbits is a bit sad, there's no setrandbits and we don't name the other random functions with a leading "get" prefix:

    getrandint(1, 6)


Raymond, would you consider providing an alias randbits and depreciating the getrandbits name? We don't have to remove it, just document it as depreciated to be removed in Python 5000 :-)

It is difficult to deprecate getrandbits() because it is one of two base methods. All Random methods call either getrandbits() or randome(). Overriding them is a way to make a new random generator.

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.

s / from other core-devs / from core-devs

As for randbool() I concur with Steven. It is too trivial and in most case you do not even need to call bool().

Alternate methods:

    choice((False, True))
    random() < 0.5

They are less efficient than getrandbits(1), but can be easily extended to non-binary output or non-uniform distribution.

> I would like to get opinions from Raymond and then 
> proceed with this issue.

I concur with Steven and Serhiy and don't think this should be added.