[Python-ideas] About adding a new iteratormethodcalled "shuffled"

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Adam Olsen writes:

 > Is it or is it not broken?

What is so hard to understand about "depending on the statistical
properties you demand, it may be broken and then again it may not?"

 > That's all I want to know.  "maybe" isn't good enough.

"If you have to ask, you can't afford it."

Ie, you've defined your own answer: it's broken *for you*.  The rest
of us would like to be allowed to judge for ourselves, though.

 > "Not broken for small lists" implies it IS broken for large lists.

You're being contentious.  It logically implies no such thing, nor is
it idiomatically an implication among consenting adults.  And in any
case, the phrasing I recommended is "guaranteed to have uniform
distribution of shuffles up to N".  The implication of "no guarantee"
is "have a mechanic inspect it before you buy", not "this is a lemon".