Ok, Dan. With what you have told me, I acknowledge that shuffling is what it’s
all about, so the metaphysics matches the physics on this case. So the problem
is on my side: Probably a deficit in fluency with idiomatic code.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
I would ascribe metaphysicality to the current name, and comprehensibility to a
more accurate name. In this case, “shuffling” is just an example of what can be
done. Abstraction is all very nice, until any applied meaning is completely
lost in mumbo-jumbo.
Neil Higgins (iPhone)
higgins-dem
So as well as getting rid of the euphemistic name, the documentation should
simply say that it delivers n pairs of random numbers in the relevant range to
a user-defined function.
Neil Higgins (iPhone)
higgins-dem...@bigpond.com
> On 16 Oct 2018, at 8:31 am, Neil Higgins <1955ne...@gma
and how it works, but it's
> also good computer science to accept that you don't need to know how things
> work under the hood either.
>
> If that overly wordy version helps?
>
> Chris
>> On Monday, 15 October 2018 15:06:58 UTC+1, Neil Higgins wrote:
>&g
