Re: Better name for method Randomizer::nextFloat()

Am 15.10.2023 um 19:24 schrieb Tim Düsterhus <tim@bastelstu.be>: > Making getFloat(float $min = 0.0, float $max = 1.0, IntervalBoundary $boundary = > IntervalBoundary::ClosedOpen) would seemingly make it legal to call ->getFloat(0.5), which I > consider to be worse than nextFloat(). While I understand that you find getFloat(0.5) undesirable I would not consider it illegal, e.g. getFloat(max:5). Additionally I would consider getInt(max:100) to be a very valid usage too. > Side note: The implementation of nextFloat() is much more efficient than that of getFloat(0.0, > 1.0) and the output will differ even for the same seeded engine. The domain of legal return values > is identical. This sounds like an implementation detail as I'm pretty sure you could switch to that fast path easily enough if neither of the arguments were given. Side-note: The case of nextInt() is a bit trickier and strikes me as a bit of a weird API and I'd consider dropping it too: Having the max value depend on the Randomizer engine makes the generated values unstable in regards to switch the Engine. And if I read the documentation correctly then it only generates 32 bit values (or should it be 31 bits as it returns positive values only?). I think it would be clearer to require the Engine to provide at least 4 bytes and then specify the default max value of getInt() to be 2^31, optionally overridable with something up to PHP_INT_MAX. So in summary I'd support both adding default values to getInt()/getFloat() as well as dropping nextFloat() in favor of getFloat() (and possible nextInt() with getInt()). Regards, - Chris