randbool!(a::Array) is no more implemented

[rfourquet]

This method was deleted in commit 550c57c, but the docs were not updated.
Could a rand(::Type{Bool}) method be added instead?

[JeffBezanson]

Maybe we should deprecate randbool[!] entirely since it is redundant with rand(Bool).

[rfourquet]

I propose that randbool() produces a zero-dimensional array, as now rand(Bool) is the normal way to get a random Bool and the only purpose of randbool is to make BitArrays. I don't know how much randbool(dims) is used, but it could also be deprecated in favor of rand!(Bool, BitArray(dims)).

[rfourquet]

My mistake, the alternative to randbool(dims) is rand!(BitArray(dims)), which makes the point of deprecating randbool stronger (which arguably could be renamed randbit, or the other way: BitArray -> BoolArray).
I can implement that.

[carlobaldassi]

I don't know how much randbool(dims) is used

I don't know about the general user base, but I use it all the time! (Really, probably some 90% of my projects use it.) So I'll cast a vote to keep it.

I think it also goes together with trues() and falses(), i.e. specialized constructors for commonly needed arrays of Bools.

About renaming BitArray -> BoolArray: that was considered and rejected when BitArrays were originally introduced.

[rfourquet]

@carlobaldassi ok! and what do you think of randbool() returning a zero-dimensional array? (like randbool(()); i.e. in every other cases, randbool(dims...) is similar to randbool(dims)).

[carlobaldassi]

@rfourquet That seems ok to me, as it makes things more consistent and there's now a perfectly good alternative. But since it's quite breaking, and the new meaning does not seem to be actually very useful in itself, I'd advocate a deprecation period.

[JeffBezanson]

I don't see any value in making randbool() return a 0-d array. Why would you want a 0-d array? We do have ndims(true)==0 and size(true)==(), so I don't think you lose much by getting a scalar.

[rfourquet]

For consistency and because I don't see the need to have this special case, but as you point many array methods apply to scalars, so the status quo is probably ok.