Rng renames: gen_ → random_ by dhardy · Pull Request #1505 · rust-random/rand

dhardy · 2024-10-09T12:20:34Z

Added a CHANGELOG.md entry

Summary

This appears to be the conclusion of #1503:

rng.random()
rng.random_iter()
rng.random_range(..len)
rng.random_bool(0.2)
rng.random_ratio(2, 3)
rng.sample(Open01)
rng.sample_iter(Open01)
rng.fill(&mut buf)

Opinion

My personal feeling is that this is a poor choice. We recently renamed rand::distributions to rand::distr because the latter was easier to type and consistent with rand_distr (see #1381). This achieves some level of consistency (excepting that random_bool describes its output while other random* methods describe their input), but is not concise.

newpavlov · 2024-10-11T13:07:04Z

+
+ /// Alias for [`Rng::random_range`].
+ #[inline]
+ #[deprecated(since = "0.9.0", note = "Renamed to `random_range`")]


Maybe it's better to do a deprecating backport and release in the v0.8 branch and remove these methods completely in v0.9?

I don't think we should add a #[deprecated] notice in a patch release because (a) it may break some builds (https://doc.rust-lang.org/cargo/reference/semver.html#new-lints) and (b) it effectively forces users who don't want to see a warning to update their code just because they updated to the next patch version.
Since the next release is a breaking release, we could just not add these #[deprecated] fn wrappers, but they potentially ease migration and I don't see much harm in leaving them in until 1.0 (or 0.10).

newpavlov · 2024-10-11T13:12:57Z

 #[inline]
 #[track_caller]
- fn gen_ratio(&mut self, numerator: u32, denominator: u32) -> bool {
+ fn random_ratio(&mut self, numerator: u32, denominator: u32) -> bool {


I think this name could be misleading. It sounds as if it generates a "random ratio". But I don't have a better proposal than much longer random_bool_with_ratio or the generic argument proposal, so I guess it's fine.

Is code like this confusing? I don't think it's particularly confusing:
if rng.random_ratio(1,100){do_something();}
An alternative is that we just remove the method and tell people to use Bernoulli::from_ratio(n, d).unwrap().sample(&mut rng), but I don't see a real reason to remove this little utility fn.

vks · 2024-10-11T15:02:45Z

I don't really like the new name. I would prefer something like sample_* or uniform_*, but I guess this is too technical.

I agree that random_ratio is misleading, but so is gen_ratio. I think bool_from_ratio or bool_from_prob would also work.

Bunch of renaming in cargo deps for random [rust-random/rand#1506](rust-random/rand#1506) — thread_rng rename [rust-random/rand#1505](rust-random/rand#1505) — gen_range rename [rust-random/rand#1424](rust-random/rand#1424) — from_entropy rename

dhardy · 2024-10-09T12:20:34Z

Added a CHANGELOG.md entry

Summary

This appears to be the conclusion of #1503:

rng.random()
rng.random_iter()
rng.random_range(..len)
rng.random_bool(0.2)
rng.random_ratio(2, 3)
rng.sample(Open01)
rng.sample_iter(Open01)
rng.fill(&mut buf)

Opinion

My personal feeling is that this is a poor choice. We recently renamed rand::distributions to rand::distr because the latter was easier to type and consistent with rand_distr (see #1381). This achieves some level of consistency (excepting that random_bool describes its output while other random* methods describe their input), but is not concise.

newpavlov · 2024-10-11T13:07:04Z

+
+ /// Alias for [`Rng::random_range`].
+ #[inline]
+ #[deprecated(since = "0.9.0", note = "Renamed to `random_range`")]


Maybe it's better to do a deprecating backport and release in the v0.8 branch and remove these methods completely in v0.9?

I don't think we should add a #[deprecated] notice in a patch release because (a) it may break some builds (https://doc.rust-lang.org/cargo/reference/semver.html#new-lints) and (b) it effectively forces users who don't want to see a warning to update their code just because they updated to the next patch version.
Since the next release is a breaking release, we could just not add these #[deprecated] fn wrappers, but they potentially ease migration and I don't see much harm in leaving them in until 1.0 (or 0.10).

newpavlov · 2024-10-11T13:12:57Z

 #[inline]
 #[track_caller]
- fn gen_ratio(&mut self, numerator: u32, denominator: u32) -> bool {
+ fn random_ratio(&mut self, numerator: u32, denominator: u32) -> bool {


I think this name could be misleading. It sounds as if it generates a "random ratio". But I don't have a better proposal than much longer random_bool_with_ratio or the generic argument proposal, so I guess it's fine.

Is code like this confusing? I don't think it's particularly confusing:
if rng.random_ratio(1,100){do_something();}
An alternative is that we just remove the method and tell people to use Bernoulli::from_ratio(n, d).unwrap().sample(&mut rng), but I don't see a real reason to remove this little utility fn.

vks · 2024-10-11T15:02:45Z

I don't really like the new name. I would prefer something like sample_* or uniform_*, but I guess this is too technical.

I agree that random_ratio is misleading, but so is gen_ratio. I think bool_from_ratio or bool_from_prob would also work.

Bunch of renaming in cargo deps for random [rust-random/rand#1506](rust-random/rand#1506) — thread_rng rename [rust-random/rand#1505](rust-random/rand#1505) — gen_range rename [rust-random/rand#1424](rust-random/rand#1424) — from_entropy rename

dhardy · 2024-10-09T12:20:34Z

Added a CHANGELOG.md entry

Summary

This appears to be the conclusion of #1503:

rng.random()
rng.random_iter()
rng.random_range(..len)
rng.random_bool(0.2)
rng.random_ratio(2, 3)
rng.sample(Open01)
rng.sample_iter(Open01)
rng.fill(&mut buf)

Opinion

My personal feeling is that this is a poor choice. We recently renamed rand::distributions to rand::distr because the latter was easier to type and consistent with rand_distr (see #1381). This achieves some level of consistency (excepting that random_bool describes its output while other random* methods describe their input), but is not concise.

newpavlov · 2024-10-11T13:07:04Z

+
+ /// Alias for [`Rng::random_range`].
+ #[inline]
+ #[deprecated(since = "0.9.0", note = "Renamed to `random_range`")]


Maybe it's better to do a deprecating backport and release in the v0.8 branch and remove these methods completely in v0.9?

I don't think we should add a #[deprecated] notice in a patch release because (a) it may break some builds (https://doc.rust-lang.org/cargo/reference/semver.html#new-lints) and (b) it effectively forces users who don't want to see a warning to update their code just because they updated to the next patch version.
Since the next release is a breaking release, we could just not add these #[deprecated] fn wrappers, but they potentially ease migration and I don't see much harm in leaving them in until 1.0 (or 0.10).

newpavlov · 2024-10-11T13:12:57Z

 #[inline]
 #[track_caller]
- fn gen_ratio(&mut self, numerator: u32, denominator: u32) -> bool {
+ fn random_ratio(&mut self, numerator: u32, denominator: u32) -> bool {


I think this name could be misleading. It sounds as if it generates a "random ratio". But I don't have a better proposal than much longer random_bool_with_ratio or the generic argument proposal, so I guess it's fine.

Is code like this confusing? I don't think it's particularly confusing:
if rng.random_ratio(1,100){do_something();}
An alternative is that we just remove the method and tell people to use Bernoulli::from_ratio(n, d).unwrap().sample(&mut rng), but I don't see a real reason to remove this little utility fn.

vks · 2024-10-11T15:02:45Z

I don't really like the new name. I would prefer something like sample_* or uniform_*, but I guess this is too technical.

I agree that random_ratio is misleading, but so is gen_ratio. I think bool_from_ratio or bool_from_prob would also work.

Bunch of renaming in cargo deps for random [rust-random/rand#1506](rust-random/rand#1506) — thread_rng rename [rust-random/rand#1505](rust-random/rand#1505) — gen_range rename [rust-random/rand#1424](rust-random/rand#1424) — from_entropy rename

dhardy · 2024-10-09T12:20:34Z

Added a CHANGELOG.md entry

Summary

This appears to be the conclusion of #1503:

rng.random()
rng.random_iter()
rng.random_range(..len)
rng.random_bool(0.2)
rng.random_ratio(2, 3)
rng.sample(Open01)
rng.sample_iter(Open01)
rng.fill(&mut buf)

Opinion

My personal feeling is that this is a poor choice. We recently renamed rand::distributions to rand::distr because the latter was easier to type and consistent with rand_distr (see #1381). This achieves some level of consistency (excepting that random_bool describes its output while other random* methods describe their input), but is not concise.

newpavlov · 2024-10-11T13:07:04Z

+
+ /// Alias for [`Rng::random_range`].
+ #[inline]
+ #[deprecated(since = "0.9.0", note = "Renamed to `random_range`")]


Maybe it's better to do a deprecating backport and release in the v0.8 branch and remove these methods completely in v0.9?

I don't think we should add a #[deprecated] notice in a patch release because (a) it may break some builds (https://doc.rust-lang.org/cargo/reference/semver.html#new-lints) and (b) it effectively forces users who don't want to see a warning to update their code just because they updated to the next patch version.
Since the next release is a breaking release, we could just not add these #[deprecated] fn wrappers, but they potentially ease migration and I don't see much harm in leaving them in until 1.0 (or 0.10).

newpavlov · 2024-10-11T13:12:57Z

 #[inline]
 #[track_caller]
- fn gen_ratio(&mut self, numerator: u32, denominator: u32) -> bool {
+ fn random_ratio(&mut self, numerator: u32, denominator: u32) -> bool {


I think this name could be misleading. It sounds as if it generates a "random ratio". But I don't have a better proposal than much longer random_bool_with_ratio or the generic argument proposal, so I guess it's fine.

Is code like this confusing? I don't think it's particularly confusing:
if rng.random_ratio(1,100){do_something();}
An alternative is that we just remove the method and tell people to use Bernoulli::from_ratio(n, d).unwrap().sample(&mut rng), but I don't see a real reason to remove this little utility fn.

vks · 2024-10-11T15:02:45Z

I don't really like the new name. I would prefer something like sample_* or uniform_*, but I guess this is too technical.

I agree that random_ratio is misleading, but so is gen_ratio. I think bool_from_ratio or bool_from_prob would also work.

Bunch of renaming in cargo deps for random [rust-random/rand#1506](rust-random/rand#1506) — thread_rng rename [rust-random/rand#1505](rust-random/rand#1505) — gen_range rename [rust-random/rand#1424](rust-random/rand#1424) — from_entropy rename

dhardy · 2024-10-09T12:20:34Z

Added a CHANGELOG.md entry

Summary

This appears to be the conclusion of #1503:

rng.random()
rng.random_iter()
rng.random_range(..len)
rng.random_bool(0.2)
rng.random_ratio(2, 3)
rng.sample(Open01)
rng.sample_iter(Open01)
rng.fill(&mut buf)

Opinion

My personal feeling is that this is a poor choice. We recently renamed rand::distributions to rand::distr because the latter was easier to type and consistent with rand_distr (see #1381). This achieves some level of consistency (excepting that random_bool describes its output while other random* methods describe their input), but is not concise.

newpavlov · 2024-10-11T13:07:04Z

+
+ /// Alias for [`Rng::random_range`].
+ #[inline]
+ #[deprecated(since = "0.9.0", note = "Renamed to `random_range`")]


Maybe it's better to do a deprecating backport and release in the v0.8 branch and remove these methods completely in v0.9?

I don't think we should add a #[deprecated] notice in a patch release because (a) it may break some builds (https://doc.rust-lang.org/cargo/reference/semver.html#new-lints) and (b) it effectively forces users who don't want to see a warning to update their code just because they updated to the next patch version.
Since the next release is a breaking release, we could just not add these #[deprecated] fn wrappers, but they potentially ease migration and I don't see much harm in leaving them in until 1.0 (or 0.10).

newpavlov · 2024-10-11T13:12:57Z

 #[inline]
 #[track_caller]
- fn gen_ratio(&mut self, numerator: u32, denominator: u32) -> bool {
+ fn random_ratio(&mut self, numerator: u32, denominator: u32) -> bool {


I think this name could be misleading. It sounds as if it generates a "random ratio". But I don't have a better proposal than much longer random_bool_with_ratio or the generic argument proposal, so I guess it's fine.

Is code like this confusing? I don't think it's particularly confusing:
if rng.random_ratio(1,100){do_something();}
An alternative is that we just remove the method and tell people to use Bernoulli::from_ratio(n, d).unwrap().sample(&mut rng), but I don't see a real reason to remove this little utility fn.

vks · 2024-10-11T15:02:45Z

I don't really like the new name. I would prefer something like sample_* or uniform_*, but I guess this is too technical.

I agree that random_ratio is misleading, but so is gen_ratio. I think bool_from_ratio or bool_from_prob would also work.

Bunch of renaming in cargo deps for random [rust-random/rand#1506](rust-random/rand#1506) — thread_rng rename [rust-random/rand#1505](rust-random/rand#1505) — gen_range rename [rust-random/rand#1424](rust-random/rand#1424) — from_entropy rename

dhardy · 2024-10-09T12:20:34Z

Added a CHANGELOG.md entry

Summary

This appears to be the conclusion of #1503:

rng.random()
rng.random_iter()
rng.random_range(..len)
rng.random_bool(0.2)
rng.random_ratio(2, 3)
rng.sample(Open01)
rng.sample_iter(Open01)
rng.fill(&mut buf)

Opinion

My personal feeling is that this is a poor choice. We recently renamed rand::distributions to rand::distr because the latter was easier to type and consistent with rand_distr (see #1381). This achieves some level of consistency (excepting that random_bool describes its output while other random* methods describe their input), but is not concise.

newpavlov · 2024-10-11T13:07:04Z

+
+ /// Alias for [`Rng::random_range`].
+ #[inline]
+ #[deprecated(since = "0.9.0", note = "Renamed to `random_range`")]


Maybe it's better to do a deprecating backport and release in the v0.8 branch and remove these methods completely in v0.9?

I don't think we should add a #[deprecated] notice in a patch release because (a) it may break some builds (https://doc.rust-lang.org/cargo/reference/semver.html#new-lints) and (b) it effectively forces users who don't want to see a warning to update their code just because they updated to the next patch version.
Since the next release is a breaking release, we could just not add these #[deprecated] fn wrappers, but they potentially ease migration and I don't see much harm in leaving them in until 1.0 (or 0.10).

newpavlov · 2024-10-11T13:12:57Z

 #[inline]
 #[track_caller]
- fn gen_ratio(&mut self, numerator: u32, denominator: u32) -> bool {
+ fn random_ratio(&mut self, numerator: u32, denominator: u32) -> bool {


I think this name could be misleading. It sounds as if it generates a "random ratio". But I don't have a better proposal than much longer random_bool_with_ratio or the generic argument proposal, so I guess it's fine.

Is code like this confusing? I don't think it's particularly confusing:
if rng.random_ratio(1,100){do_something();}
An alternative is that we just remove the method and tell people to use Bernoulli::from_ratio(n, d).unwrap().sample(&mut rng), but I don't see a real reason to remove this little utility fn.

vks · 2024-10-11T15:02:45Z

I don't really like the new name. I would prefer something like sample_* or uniform_*, but I guess this is too technical.

I agree that random_ratio is misleading, but so is gen_ratio. I think bool_from_ratio or bool_from_prob would also work.

Bunch of renaming in cargo deps for random [rust-random/rand#1506](rust-random/rand#1506) — thread_rng rename [rust-random/rand#1505](rust-random/rand#1505) — gen_range rename [rust-random/rand#1424](rust-random/rand#1424) — from_entropy rename

dhardy · 2024-10-09T12:20:34Z

Added a CHANGELOG.md entry

Summary

This appears to be the conclusion of #1503:

rng.random()
rng.random_iter()
rng.random_range(..len)
rng.random_bool(0.2)
rng.random_ratio(2, 3)
rng.sample(Open01)
rng.sample_iter(Open01)
rng.fill(&mut buf)

Opinion

My personal feeling is that this is a poor choice. We recently renamed rand::distributions to rand::distr because the latter was easier to type and consistent with rand_distr (see #1381). This achieves some level of consistency (excepting that random_bool describes its output while other random* methods describe their input), but is not concise.

newpavlov · 2024-10-11T13:07:04Z

+
+ /// Alias for [`Rng::random_range`].
+ #[inline]
+ #[deprecated(since = "0.9.0", note = "Renamed to `random_range`")]


Maybe it's better to do a deprecating backport and release in the v0.8 branch and remove these methods completely in v0.9?

I don't think we should add a #[deprecated] notice in a patch release because (a) it may break some builds (https://doc.rust-lang.org/cargo/reference/semver.html#new-lints) and (b) it effectively forces users who don't want to see a warning to update their code just because they updated to the next patch version.
Since the next release is a breaking release, we could just not add these #[deprecated] fn wrappers, but they potentially ease migration and I don't see much harm in leaving them in until 1.0 (or 0.10).

newpavlov · 2024-10-11T13:12:57Z

 #[inline]
 #[track_caller]
- fn gen_ratio(&mut self, numerator: u32, denominator: u32) -> bool {
+ fn random_ratio(&mut self, numerator: u32, denominator: u32) -> bool {


I think this name could be misleading. It sounds as if it generates a "random ratio". But I don't have a better proposal than much longer random_bool_with_ratio or the generic argument proposal, so I guess it's fine.

Is code like this confusing? I don't think it's particularly confusing:
if rng.random_ratio(1,100){do_something();}
An alternative is that we just remove the method and tell people to use Bernoulli::from_ratio(n, d).unwrap().sample(&mut rng), but I don't see a real reason to remove this little utility fn.

vks · 2024-10-11T15:02:45Z

I don't really like the new name. I would prefer something like sample_* or uniform_*, but I guess this is too technical.

I agree that random_ratio is misleading, but so is gen_ratio. I think bool_from_ratio or bool_from_prob would also work.

Bunch of renaming in cargo deps for random [rust-random/rand#1506](rust-random/rand#1506) — thread_rng rename [rust-random/rand#1505](rust-random/rand#1505) — gen_range rename [rust-random/rand#1424](rust-random/rand#1424) — from_entropy rename

dhardy · 2024-10-09T12:20:34Z

Added a CHANGELOG.md entry

Summary

This appears to be the conclusion of #1503:

rng.random()
rng.random_iter()
rng.random_range(..len)
rng.random_bool(0.2)
rng.random_ratio(2, 3)
rng.sample(Open01)
rng.sample_iter(Open01)
rng.fill(&mut buf)

Opinion

My personal feeling is that this is a poor choice. We recently renamed rand::distributions to rand::distr because the latter was easier to type and consistent with rand_distr (see #1381). This achieves some level of consistency (excepting that random_bool describes its output while other random* methods describe their input), but is not concise.

newpavlov · 2024-10-11T13:07:04Z

+
+ /// Alias for [`Rng::random_range`].
+ #[inline]
+ #[deprecated(since = "0.9.0", note = "Renamed to `random_range`")]


Maybe it's better to do a deprecating backport and release in the v0.8 branch and remove these methods completely in v0.9?

I don't think we should add a #[deprecated] notice in a patch release because (a) it may break some builds (https://doc.rust-lang.org/cargo/reference/semver.html#new-lints) and (b) it effectively forces users who don't want to see a warning to update their code just because they updated to the next patch version.
Since the next release is a breaking release, we could just not add these #[deprecated] fn wrappers, but they potentially ease migration and I don't see much harm in leaving them in until 1.0 (or 0.10).

newpavlov · 2024-10-11T13:12:57Z

 #[inline]
 #[track_caller]
- fn gen_ratio(&mut self, numerator: u32, denominator: u32) -> bool {
+ fn random_ratio(&mut self, numerator: u32, denominator: u32) -> bool {


I think this name could be misleading. It sounds as if it generates a "random ratio". But I don't have a better proposal than much longer random_bool_with_ratio or the generic argument proposal, so I guess it's fine.

Is code like this confusing? I don't think it's particularly confusing:
if rng.random_ratio(1,100){do_something();}
An alternative is that we just remove the method and tell people to use Bernoulli::from_ratio(n, d).unwrap().sample(&mut rng), but I don't see a real reason to remove this little utility fn.

vks · 2024-10-11T15:02:45Z

I don't really like the new name. I would prefer something like sample_* or uniform_*, but I guess this is too technical.

I agree that random_ratio is misleading, but so is gen_ratio. I think bool_from_ratio or bool_from_prob would also work.

Bunch of renaming in cargo deps for random [rust-random/rand#1506](rust-random/rand#1506) — thread_rng rename [rust-random/rand#1505](rust-random/rand#1505) — gen_range rename [rust-random/rand#1424](rust-random/rand#1424) — from_entropy rename

dhardy added 9 commits October 9, 2024 13:06

Rename Rng::gen_range -> random_range
c170532

Remove unnecessary lower bound in increasing_uniform
7a2ae98

Rename Rng::gen_bool -> random_bool
de035ed

Rename Rng::gen_ratio -> random_ratio
bb8ef65

Misc. renames gen_ -> random_
bb3eb6f

Merge branch 'master' into rng-renames
7c21e90

Update CHANGELOG
3e24d02

Re-order Rng methods
bd3194b

Add deperecated Rng method aliases
bd0bd2f

dhardy marked this pull request as ready for review October 11, 2024 09:01

dhardy requested a review from newpavlov October 11, 2024 09:02

newpavlov approved these changes Oct 11, 2024
View reviewed changes

dhardy merged commit 8225d94 into rust-random:masterOct 16, 2024

dhardy mentioned this pull request Oct 16, 2024
add rand::range, random_bool, random_iter, random_ratio, fill as top-level helper functions #1488
Merged

dhardy deleted the rng-renames branch October 16, 2024 15:12

benjamin-lieser pushed a commit to benjamin-lieser/rand that referenced this pull request Oct 24, 2024
Rng renames: gen_ → random_ (rust-random#1505)
7d86912

benjamin-lieser pushed a commit to benjamin-lieser/rand that referenced this pull request Feb 5, 2025
Rng renames: gen_ → random_ (rust-random#1505)
ea2526a

benjamin-lieser pushed a commit to benjamin-lieser/rand that referenced this pull request Feb 5, 2025
Rng renames: gen_ → random_ (rust-random#1505)
4dd931a

ghost-of-high-heartBot mentioned this pull request Apr 5, 2026
Update rand to 0.10.0 wereHamster/sarne#49
Closed

cpinn mentioned this pull request May 19, 2026
More package upgrades for rust, npm and pip braintrustdata/lingua#245
Merged

This was referenced Jul 27, 2026
[PR] Update Rust crate rand to 0.10.0 vxfemboy/g1r#2
Closed
Update Rust crate rand to 0.10.0 vxfemboy/g1r#9
Open
Update Rust crate rand to 0.10 vxfemboy/wipedicks#9
Open