Add C# code to random_number_generation and fix shuffle bag example.

[ssBandit]

Changes made to shuffle bag example:

• Replace .empty() with .is_empty()
• More descriptive comment
• Changed code-block into a tabbed code block

[paulloz]

Hello 👋 Thanks for the contribution.
I made some comment in-line. In general, I'm not sure if we should use Godot collections here, instead of system ones. I don't really see an obvious reason for the former, and we establish here to avoid it if possible. Maybe someone else can confirm/infirm that (cc @raulsntos?).

[ssBandit]

Thanks for taking a look and noticing the mistakes.

The reason for using Godot collections is that in the shuffle bag example it uses .Shuffle(), and the metal example uses .Duplicate() which would be bit more difficult to do with pure system collections.
(And the documentation kinda implies the use of Godot collections for Array and Dictionary. Maybe there needs to be a disclaimer about it there.)

[raulsntos]

In general I think we should prefer System collections, as recommended in the documentation page that @paulloz linked.

I can see how using the Shuffle method is more convenient than using a custom solution. But I don't think it's too much code.

I think if this documentation page is meant to be a general guide to randomness, using System collections is preferable. I don't think the goal of this page is to show you how to use Shuffle specifically, but rather to explain the shuffle bag pattern (which can also be implemented without Godot's Shuffle method).

I don't think the text necessarily implies using Godot collections, the word array can be understood as C# arrays, and dictionary is also the name of the System collection. But I see your point, it's true that sometimes the text in the documentation doesn't align perfectly with the C# examples, but that's already the case in many documentation pages.

[paulloz]

@raulsntos should we finally get this merged?

[raulsntos]

Thanks for the ping, I totally forgot about this. I took another look and found a couple things that I missed in my previous review.

[raulsntos]

Looks good to me, thanks! And sorry it took me so long to review.

[ssBandit]

No problem. Thanks for the diligent review.

[tetrapod00]

Thanks, and thanks for your patience with the long review process! Congrats on your first merged docs contribution

[ssBandit]

Thank you.
Even though the one thing I was meaning to correct in the first place (empty() -> is_empty()) was fixed already by someone else 🥲
I should split commits into separate pull requests in the future.