[Sven R. Kunze <srkunze@mail.de>]
I am not questioning experience which everyone in a team can benefit from.
BUT experienced devs also need to recognize and respect the fact that younger/unexperienced developers are just better in detecting inconsistencies and bloody work-arounds. They simply haven't had to live with them for so long. Experienced devs just are stuck in a rut/are routine-blinded: "we've done that for years", "there's no better way".
That's the way we do it in our teams. Employing the new guys as some sort of inconsistency detectors. This way, they learn to find their way around the code base and they can improve it by doing so.
And I would never allow it in my team, to dismiss this kind of observation from new colleagues. It's invaluable as they will become routine-blinded as well.
I have been more than willing to discuss it, and I did not close the issue report. I did say I was opposed to it, but that's simply because I am, and I explained there too _why_ I was opposed. Do you have anything to say about the specific proposal? I doubt either of us has found this meta-discussion useful. I'm still looking for a compelling use case. The only concrete thing anyone has noted in `shuffled()`'s favor so far is that sometimes they're surprised by the behavior of random.shuffle(list) returning None in an interactive shell (noted by you, and by another, and I cheerfully own up to being a bit surprised by that too long ago). But that's an observation about `random.shuffle()`, not about the proposed `shuffled()`.
[...] I would be far more annoyed if, e.g.,
random.shuffle(some_million_element_list)
swamped my terminal with mountains of output.
But you readily accept this behavior for "sorted"? That makes no sense at all.
Of course it does. The only analogy to random.shuffle(big_list) returning None that makes a lick of sense here is that big_list.sort() also returns None. IF a `shuffled()` function is introduced, then of course it should return its result - just like `sorted()` returns its result.
You can't both behaviors simultaneously, so the status quo wins. Indeed, the venerable status quo ;-)
Nobody said to change "shuffle".
A verbatim quote from the first message in this thread: "Also shuffle() should return self so mutating methods could be chained."