On 2016-11-30 17:57, Chris Kaynor wrote:
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 11:52 AM, Chris Kaynor <ckay...@zindagigames.com> wrote:
There are also issues with how it should behave on iterables that
cannot be re-iterated (eg, random.choice will consume the iterator,
and could only be called once safely).
I meant to include a sample in my previous e-mail:
Consider that this code will not produce the "correct" results (for a
reasonable definition of correct):
a = (i for i in range(100)) # Pretend this does something more
interesting, and isn't a trivial generator - maybe a file object
reading by line.
randomEntries = [random.choice(a) for i in range(10)]
In such a case you should explicitly use a sample.
I see your example as the caller's fault, which ignored the fact that
the iterator would change after calls to choice.
Hold the first 10 (in this case). For every subsequent element, randomly
choose to replace one of the "held" ones by it (with a diminishing
probability).
Assume this does not offer the same performance as loading everything
into memory. But it isn't meant to do so, as if you need / can / want,
you could just shove it all into a list and use what we currently have.
--
Bernardo Sulzbach
http://www.mafagafogigante.org/
mafagafogiga...@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
