random: toShuffled

[mfulton26]

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.

I thought a shuffle method would update an array in place.

Describe the solution you'd like

Two methods: shuffle and toShuffled (similar to built in methods reverse and toReversed, sort and toSorted, etc.): one for updating the array in place and the other for returning a new array.

Describe alternatives you've considered

Extracting the implementation and maintaining my own in-place shuffle method. That would not be ideal though.

[Delapouite]

Related TC39 proposal: https://github.com/tc39-transfer/proposal-random-functions?tab=readme-ov-file#collection-methods

shuffle(arr): Shuffles an Array in-place. Argument must be an Array or Array-like.
toShuffled(coll): Returns a fresh Array containing the shuffled values from coll, which can be any iterable.

[lionel-rowe]

I'm in favor of this change in principle as it aligns nicely with the array methods and the TC39 proposal.

As it would be a breaking change, it might be worth batching together into a single @std/random release with changing randomSeeded to a 53-bit version if that change is made too (current PR for that ticket is a non-breaking version of that change that introduces new methods rather than changing randomSeeded).

[tabatkins]

Note that the collection methods were just approved as a Stage 1 proposal; it's possible they may change or be dropped. (In particular, based on feedback during the plenary, I'm going to kick them out to a separate proposal and focus the first one on just uniform numbers, tho I don't expect them to be controversial.)

I'm fairly confident that we'll stick with .shuffle() and .toShuffled(), as they're obviously useful and the most straightforward, obvious names.

[kt3k]

Two methods: shuffle and toShuffled (similar to built in methods reverse and toReversed, sort and toSorted, etc.): one for updating the array in place and the other for returning a new array.

Sounds a good idea to me