Deleted sorts/random_pivot_quick_sort.py. Fixes #9124

[aryan1165]

Describe your change:

Fixes #9124.
Deleted sorts/random_pivot_quick_sort.py

• Add an algorithm?
• Fix a bug or typo in an existing algorithm?
• Documentation change?

Checklist:

• I have read CONTRIBUTING.md.
• This pull request is all my own work -- I have not plagiarized.
• I know that pull requests will not be merged if they fail the automated tests.
• This PR only changes one algorithm file. To ease review, please open separate PRs for separate algorithms.
• All new Python files are placed inside an existing directory.
• All filenames are in all lowercase characters with no spaces or dashes.
• All functions and variable names follow Python naming conventions.
• All function parameters and return values are annotated with Python type hints.
• All functions have doctests that pass the automated testing.
• All new algorithms include at least one URL that points to Wikipedia or another similar explanation.
• If this pull request resolves one or more open issues then the description above includes the issue number(s) with a closing keyword: "Fixes #ISSUE-NUMBER".

[tianyizheng02]

Thanks for your contribution!

[tianyizheng02]

Just realized that the implementation in sorts/random_pivot_quick_sort.py was better than the one in random_normal_distribution_quicksort.py, so we should've probably kept that one instead... I'll open a new PR to replace the implementation in random_normal_distribution_quicksort.py with this deleted implementation

[aryan1165]

Oh! My bad i didn't notice it. Are you going to open it? Or do you want me to do so.

[tianyizheng02]

I'll open the PR. The deleted implementation needs much fixing anyway (no tests, no type hints, etc)

[tianyizheng02]

Wait... I just took a look at the original quick_sort.py and it already uses a random pivot... which means that both random_pivot_quick_sort.py and random_normal_distribution_quicksort.py are duplicates?? I guess we should delete the other file as well then...

[aryan1165]

Oh! Thats surprising. Opening another PR doing the same. I think i should take a look and report all those similar implementations in entire codebase as issues. As hacktoberfest has started some new comers will try to fix that issue as their good-first issue. Thoughts?

[tianyizheng02]

I just opened a PR deleting the other file. We actually already have an issue addressing duplicate algorithms (#8098), and I just added the "good first issue" tag to the issue. Thanks for the suggestion

[aryan1165]

I just saw that you also opened a PR regarding same. Sorry i didn't see it earlier. Thanks for considering my suggestion.