CHANGE: rename Rng methods random, gen_*

[dhardy]

#989 discusses the addition of methods like rand::range, which leads back to Rng::gen_range.

#1438 and #1500 already renamed gen → random and gen_iter → random_iter.

Since we no longer have Rng::gen, should we rename gen_range, gen_bool and gen_ratio?

Aim: make method/function names consistent, memorable and easily comprehensible.

Proposals

Old (v0.8)

Before gen was deprecated, we had:

rng.gen()
rng.gen_range(0..len)
rng.gen_bool(0.2)
rng.gen_ratio(2, 3)
rng.sample(Open01)
rng.sample_iter(Open01)
rng.fill(&mut buf)
rng.try_fill(&mut buf)

Status quo

If we make no further changes, we have the following Rng methods:

rng.random()
rng.random_iter()
rng.sample(Open01)
rng.sample_iter(Open01)
rng.fill(&mut buf)
rng.gen_range(..len)
rng.gen_bool(0.2)
rng.gen_ratio(2, 3)
#[deprecated] rng.gen()

gen_bool → p; drop gen prefix

We could just:

rng.range(..len)
rng.bool(0.2)
rng.ratio(2, 3)

And yes, it appears that we can use bool as a method name (it's a primitive type, not a keyword).

gen_bool → p; drop gen prefix

This is the most concise change:

rng.range(..len)
rng.p(0.2)
rng.ratio(2, 3)

Is it clear enough that rng.p(p) is generating a random variate where P(X = true) = p?

Some weird variations on this:

rng.bool_p(0.2)
rng.bool_ratio(2, 3)

rng.true_p(0.2)
rng.true_ratio(2, 3)

gen_ → random_

A straightforward replacement gives us:

rng.random()
rng.random_iter()
rng.random_range(..len)
rng.random_p(0.2)
rng.random_ratio(2, 3)

This seems fine, if a bit long.

random → next

We already have RngCore::next_u32 etc., so we could rename random (what was gen) to next:

rng.next()
rng.next_iter()
rng.next_range(..len)
rng.next_p(0.2)
rng.next_ratio(2, 3)

Caveat 1: this no longer matches rand::random (which we probably don't want to rename to rand::next).

Caveat 2: rng.next_iter() is a weird name; we can't really use rng.iter() however since it generates an iterator over Standard samples, not an abstract iterator over the RNG.

[newpavlov]

I am in favor of using the random_ prefix, we also could shorten it to rand_. rng.ratio(2, 3) looks a bit weird in my opinion. rng.next_ratio(2, 3) is even worse.

[dhardy]

I agree, except that random_range is rather long.

[newpavlov]

It's just 3 letters longer than gen_range and it has good readability.

[dhardy]

I agree. Any other thoughts @vks, @oconnor663?

[JamboChen]

I prefer using rng.bool_p(0.2) over rng.p(0.2). If I were using the rand library for the first time and had no documentation, it would be hard for me to figure out that .p(0.2) generates a bool just from the name. If someone wants to flip a bunch of coins quickly, I doubt they'd search the docs for "p." They're more likely to look for "bool," "true," or even "succ."

Maybe this understanding issue could be addressed with a larger poll.

[vks]

This is just bikeshedding, but I think p is too short. In my opinion, it should be at least probability or with_probability.

There is precedence for just using the type names, this is what fastrand does.

[dhardy]

Then it sounds like the consensus may be:

rng.random()
rng.random_iter()
rng.random_range(..len)
rng.bool(0.2)
rng.bool_ratio(2, 3)

This is just bikeshedding, but I think p is too short. In my opinion, it should be at least probability or with_probability.

I think your suggestions are too long!

fastrand is weird in that bool, float types and a few others are unparameterised, integer types and char are parameterised via a range, digit is parameterised via a base, and then other functions like seed and shuffle are thrown in there.

[newpavlov]

rng.bool(0.2)

How about rng.random_bool(p: impl Into<Probability>)? It would be generic over floats and ratio tuple. For explicitness user also could use Probability::Ratio(x, y).

[oconnor663]

I haven't had occasion to use gen_bool myself, so I don't have many thoughts about it, but just to throw another name in the pot, how do folks feel about chance? Something like this:

if rng.chance(0.5) {
    println!("winner!");
}