On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 3:34 PM Robert Kern <robert.k...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't object to some Notes, but I would probably phrase it more like we
> are providing the standard definition of the jargon term "sampling without
> replacement" in the case of non-uniform probabilities. To my mind (or more
> accurately, with my background), "replace=False" obviously picks out the
> implemented procedure, and I would have been incredibly surprised if it did
> anything else. If the option were named "unique=True", then I would have
> needed some more documentation to let me know exactly how it was
> implemented.

It is what I would have expected too, but we have a concrete example of a
user who expected otherwise; where one user speaks up, there are probably
more who didn't (some of whom probably have code that's not doing what they
think it does). So for the cost of adding a Note, why not help some of them?

As for the standardness of the definition: I don't know, have you a
reference where it is defined? More natural to me would be to have a list
of items with integer multiplicities (as in: "cat" 3 times, "dog" 1 time).
I'm hesitant to claim ours is a standard definition unless it's in a
textbook somewhere. But I don't insist on my phrasing.

NumPy-Discussion mailing list

Reply via email to