I wrote it, only in response to #168.

I don't have a strong attachment to it, but I do like having some answer to the question "does Ramda provide a shuffle function?"

I don't have a strong attachment to it, but I do like having some answer to the question "does Ramda provide a shuffle function?"

#522 (comment)

@kedashoe: It's hard to think of that 100-line sample as the answer to how you'd create one yourself, though.

It's hard to think of that 100-line sample as the answer to how you'd create one yourself, though.

I see, not so much an example as something you want users to be able to add to R if they want. My suggestion does indeed seem the wrong place then!

I see, not so much an example as something you want users to be able to add to R if they want.

Exactly. This function is a little too specialized, and frankly a little too large, to comfortably fit in Ramda itself. That's why we have an extension. But I'm sympathetic to @davidchambers' point that it still feels an odd fit, perhaps not the shuffle function itself, but the Random and Mash ones it depends on.

Even the shuffle function seems out of place to me. It would be nice to be able to say Ramda functions are referentially transparent without caveats.

That version of shuffle is referentially transparent. That is the point of the complex implementation.

That version of shuffle is referentially transparent. That is the point of the complex implementation.

Oh I see! That addresses my concern. Feel free to close this pull request.

Let's leave it for a day or two for others' input. It's a reasonable question. Not many people really want to use a shuffle function like that. And to use it in a referentially transparent way you also lose the real point of randomness. A repeatable PRNG is useful, but for a realistic use of it, you'll have to seed the Random with something actually random, likely a timestamp. That means that although technically referentially transparent, it's not really true in practice.

So let's think about this for a bit.

Crickets

I say we cut it. :)