ne. I would oppose offering randomrange (or offering more than one
of them) since this will pretty well guarantee that, sooner or later,
someone will make a mistake in using the extra functionality and
possibly deploy an insecure application as a result
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I'm fine with dropping the 3rd arg. But I find the argument to
> introduce a new spelling for 1-arg randrange() weak.
I should stress that my preference for randbelow over randrange was
based purely on their proposed functionality and not on their names.
I do however
