[Sven R. Kunze <srkunze@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 ;-)