On 2016-10-21 17:30, Stefan Monnier wrote:
>>> Hmm... do we really need that?  What's the benefit?
>> I think it's convenient.  Accessing random elements of sequences is not
>> uncommon.
> 
> Right, but
> 
>     (seq-elt L (random (seq-length L)))
> 
> it pretty convenient to write and pretty clear as well, so the benefit
> seems slim.

Indeed, but it's arguably wrong: if L is nil, random will ignore limit and possibly return a negative number.  seq-elt is unspecified for negative indices AFAICT (though it seems to return nil ATM).
So maybe we could/should have a seq-random-element, and it should check for nil.  If it did, then it would be a useful addition, I think.

Cheers,
Clément.