I’ve been missing from discussions recently and will have to circle back and catch up, but given that I participated in review of this proposal I will chime in here.
Like several others, I disagree (strongly) with the proposed amendment:
There is essentially nothing else besides the default RNG that can legitimately lay claim to the name “Random”—and even those who wish to use it as a namespace can declare extensions of Random with their custom type.
Nothing about the proposed amended name adds clarity to “Random”: as it is a well-established term of art, it is clearly a RNG, and since it’s unadorned, it really can’t be anything other than the default RNG. Moreover, the name “Random” communicates that we have attempted to design a type appropriate for general use, not just a placeholder type to be superseded by a custom superior implementation (as the word “default” may imply to some readers). I do not think a strong case can be made that “default” and “number generator” are needful words in this context, and therefore the principle of “omit needless words” comes into play here.
That the core team is having trouble renaming “Random.default” is, to me, a symptom of the redundancy of the proposed amended name, and the solution that I would propose is to address the underlying cause: do not adopt this proposed amendment.
(To Erica’s question: why not have Random() instead of Random.default? It is a common mistake to seed a new PRNG every time a random number is needed; for some PRNGs, this has some overhead, but crucially it is not sound in terms of obtaining good randomness. Although the default Random could conceivably be designed so that these are not issues, to make Random() become the preferred way of using a shared default PRNG would be actively educating users to misuse other PRNGs.)