[Python-ideas] Shuffled

[Tim Peters]

[Sven R. Kunze <srkunze at 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."