On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Xavier Combelle
wrote:
> and eventually this one work in all case of iterable
>
> def shuffled3(iterable):
> result = list(iterable)
> random.shuffle(result)
> return result
>
This is the one obvious way to do this. Not all iterables can
logically be sh
When thinking about the shuffled thread, it occurred to me that it was
quite easy to pass an iterable and expect the iterable to be shuffled.
but two mentioned implementation are close to success but fail by not
taking this use case in account:
def shuffled1(iterable):
result = iterable[:]
Hey, I just did put my thoughts on the discussion floor. Dont yell at me
for it not being the most interesting idea ever. There were few interesting
responses after all. Lets move on.
pozdrawiam,
Arkadiusz Bulski
___
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-id
I also can't really get from "Arek has a need for this one line definition"
to "it should be in the standard library". Sure, 'shuffled()' is a more
obvious spelling than the slightly odd lambda. But I've yet to see the
reason that alias can't just be defined at the top of the test suite.
On Sep 8,
[Arek Bulski ]
> I dont randomize test order. People should stop assuming that they know
> better.
They should, but, to be fair, you've left them little choice because
you've been so telegraphic about why you think this is a compelling
idea. Others are trying to fill in the blanks, and can only g
On 8 September 2016 at 16:59, Arek Bulski wrote:
>> You've probably spent way more time debating shuffled here than you would
>> have needed to add a shuffled function to your test file.
>
> Another presupposition. I did add it to my utility. I am proposing to add
> this to the std library so that
> You've probably spent way more time debating shuffled here than you would
have needed to add a shuffled function to your test file.
Another presupposition. I did add it to my utility. I am proposing to add
this to the std library so that others dont have to.
pozdrawiam,
Arkadiusz Bulski
___
This thread is just going around and around in circles, so I will make
one final response and then I'm going to bow out.
On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 11:34:57AM +0200, Arek Bulski wrote:
> Needs to be shuffled().
>
> https://github.com/construct/construct/blob/master/tests/test_all.py
> See? No way
> On Sep 8, 2016, at 5:34 AM, Arek Bulski wrote:
>
> > So, why can't you call random.shuffle(all_tests) if you want to run your
> > tests in random order?
>
> I dont randomize test order. People should stop assuming that they know
> better.
That's the best I could do given the minimal explan
On 8 September 2016 at 10:34, Arek Bulski wrote:
> That wont work because I would have to type the expression that is used as
> argument twice in a test. I need shuffled. Enough said.
You've probably spent way more time debating shuffled here than you
would have needed to add a shuffled function
>
> That wont work because I would have to type the expression that is used as
> argument twice in a test.
(lambda data: random.sample(data, len(data)))(container)
That lambda is actually your "shuffled"...
2016-09-08 6:34 GMT-03:00 Arek Bulski :
> > So, why can't you call random.shuffle(all_te
> So, why can't you call random.shuffle(all_tests) if you want to run your tests
in random order?
I dont randomize test order. People should stop assuming that they know
better. I need to randomize some arguments for one particular test and I
cannot call shuffle between tests. Its a continous list
On 8 September 2016 at 15:05, Danilo J. S. Bellini
wrote:
>> 1. The cognitive leap between shuffling and sampling isn't small
>
> I don't think so, actually the Fisher-Yates shuffle algorithm algorithm is
> an iterative sampling algorithm:
> https://gist.github.com/danilobellini/6384872
I'm not t
>
> 1. The cognitive leap between shuffling and sampling isn't small
>
I don't think so, actually the Fisher-Yates shuffle algorithm algorithm is
an iterative sampling algorithm: https://gist.github.com/danilo
bellini/6384872
> 2. "shuffled" would be a more logical name for an out-of-place shuffl
On 8 September 2016 at 13:33, Danilo J. S. Bellini
wrote:
> Nice to know about random.sample! =)
>
> I think what OP said can then be reduced to having the default k in
> random.sample to be the iterable size. The existance of random.sample is a
> very strong argument against "shuffled", and the o
Nice to know about random.sample! =)
I think what OP said can then be reduced to having the default k in
random.sample to be the iterable size. The existance of random.sample is a
very strong argument against "shuffled", and the only "feature" shuffled
would have that random.sample doesn't have is
On 8 September 2016 at 13:23, Nick Coghlan wrote:
> Beyond that practical benefit, if you want
> random-sampling-with-replacement, then "map(random.choice, container)"
Oops, that was supposed to be "map(random.choice, itertools.repeat(container))".
Cheers,
Nick.
--
Nick Coghlan | ncogh...
On 8 September 2016 at 12:47, Danilo J. S. Bellini
wrote:
> Though I agree with the argument that inexperienced developers are [usually]
> worse, that's not the case here, unless anyone here is really trying to say
> the ones arguing for or against "shuffled" are inexperienced. These ad
> hominem
On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 11:47:49PM -0300, Danilo J. S. Bellini wrote:
> Though I agree with the argument that inexperienced developers are
> [usually] worse, that's not the case here, unless anyone here is really
> trying to say the ones arguing for or against "shuffled" are inexperienced.
> These
On 8 September 2016 at 12:00, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 11:43:59PM +0200, Sven R. Kunze wrote:
>
>> BUT experienced devs also need to recognize and respect the fact that
>> younger/unexperienced developers are just better in detecting
>> inconsistencies and bloody work-aroun
Though I agree with the argument that inexperienced developers are
[usually] worse, that's not the case here, unless anyone here is really
trying to say the ones arguing for or against "shuffled" are inexperienced.
These ad hominem won't bring us anywhere.
No one seem to be arguing if "shuffled" i
On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 12:22:28AM +0200, Sven R. Kunze wrote:
> About the confusion of returning None. It's not confusing in the sense
> of "o my god, I did it wrong, I need to learn it", but more, like "I
> used shuffle, BECAUSE it's the only one I could find in a hurry"
Then don't be in such
On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 11:43:59PM +0200, Sven R. Kunze wrote:
> BUT experienced devs also need to recognize and respect the fact that
> younger/unexperienced developers are just better in detecting
> inconsistencies and bloody work-arounds.
That is not a fact. It is the opposite of a fact -- i
On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 9:12 PM, Alexander Belopolsky <
alexander.belopol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 8:14 PM, Arek Bulski wrote:
> >
> > If you want to see the declarative tests, here it is.
> > https://github.com/construct/construct/blob/master/tests/test_all.py
>
>
> So, why c
On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 8:14 PM, Arek Bulski wrote:
>
> If you want to see the declarative tests, here it is.
> https://github.com/construct/construct/blob/master/tests/test_all.py
So, why can't you call random.shuffle(all_tests) if you want to run your
tests in random order?
If for some reason
If you want to see the declarative tests, here it is.
https://github.com/construct/construct/blob/master/tests/test_all.py
pozdrawiam,
Arkadiusz Bulski
2016-09-08 2:13 GMT+02:00 Arek Bulski :
> See for yourself. There is a long list of declarative tests.
> https://github.com/construct/construct
On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 6:56 PM, Arek Bulski wrote:
> In the project I maintain (construct) there are declarative testcases that
> look like a long list of (func, args, excepted output, error type) tuples.
> There is no way for me to call shuffle in there.
Can you explain why? Something like th
On 07/09/2016 23:41, Matt Gilson wrote:
I lurk around here a lot more than I actually post
Very wise. I am a tournament Bridge player, and one of the things I say
to my partners is: "Bidding is very simple. When you have something to
say, say it (unless it really seems too dangerous). When
On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 3:10 PM, Sven R. Kunze wrote:
> @David
> Your idea of a PyPI package could almost work. However, in an interactive
> python console, I expect as much batteries included as possible to make it
> as quick as possible. And considering how simple such wrapper would be, it
> alm
On 08.09.2016 00:41, Matt Gilson wrote:
I lurk around here a lot more than I actually post -- But in this case
I find myself weighing in firmly on the side of "please don't add
this". It'd just add noise in the documentation and __builtins__
namespace. There are millions of useful functions t
Thank you all for the meta discussion. I know we sidetracked a bit but
please everyone remember, this is an open discussion floor.
I can present you a use case, just didnt think I even needed one. This
seems so obvious to me that it should just go in without much saying. In
the project I maintain
I lurk around here a lot more than I actually post -- But in this case I
find myself weighing in firmly on the side of "please don't add this".
It'd just add noise in the documentation and __builtins__ namespace. There
are millions of useful functions that *could* be added to the `list` object
(or
Maybe, there's a misunderstanding here and I hope I didn't waste too
much of your and my time.
Not sure where I got this from but my last status was that Arek would
like to have a "shuffled" function that does exactly what you described.
Maybe, that doesn't fit the reports description but his
On 07.09.2016 02:49, Chris Kaynor wrote:
I'll weigh in and say that I've had a few cases where I've wanted a
shuffled function, but not many. The vast majority are interactive
uses, where I want to get a sampling of data, and in those cases I'm
normally just printing the output (often, by letti
[Sven R. Kunze ]
> I am not questioning experience which everyone in a team can benefit from.
>
>
> BUT experienced devs also need to recognize and respect the fact that
> younger/unexperienced developers are just better in detecting
> inconsistencies and bloody work-arounds. They simply haven't ha
On 06.09.2016 21:29, Tim Peters wrote:
In the absence of anything approaching [use-cases], it's a matter of taste, and
then
- yes - decades of Python development experience do - and should -
outweigh a newcomer's wish list. Especially when, as appears to be
the case here, those with truly exte
On 09/06/2016 11:15 AM, Sven R. Kunze wrote:
On 06.09.2016 18:32, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
If your only argument is to continue to insist that Python should have a
shuffled() function and you'll write a patch, it will go no where. First
you have to convince people that the patch is needed.
He
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 3:04 PM, Tim Peters wrote:
> But would you _use_ it? I'm still asking for use cases.
>
> When, e.g., I'm randomizing permutations for testing, the last thing I
> want is:
>
> while whatever:
> result = function_of_xs(shuffled(xs))
> check result and com
[David Mertz ]
> This definitely feels like a case of "put it on PyPI." Actually, maybe
> contribute to `boltons`, it feels like it might fit as a utility function
> there.
It's trivial to write such a function if it's truly needed - it would
be easier to write it from scratch than to remember wh
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 2:48 PM, David Mertz wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Sven R. Kunze wrote:
>>
>> Their response: "Oh, I don't need it, let's close it."
>> Arek: "But I need it."
>
>
> This definitely feels like a case of "put it on PyPI." Actually, maybe
> contribute to `boltons`,
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Sven R. Kunze wrote:
>
> Their response: "Oh, I don't need it, let's close it."
> Arek: "But I need it."
>
This definitely feels like a case of "put it on PyPI." Actually, maybe
contribute to `boltons`, it feels like it might fit as a utility function
there.
Whil
[Sven R. Kunze ]
>>>
>>> ...
>>> He already convinced some people. Just not some venerable Python devs,
>>> which>> doesn't necessarily mean something at all.
>>>
>>> Their response: "Oh, I don't need it, let's close it."
>>> Arek: "But I need it."
>>>
>>> So, who's right now?
[Tim]
>> By default,
On 06.09.2016 20:46, Bernardo Sulzbach wrote:
On 09/06/2016 03:37 PM, Sven R. Kunze wrote:
Besides being a silly argument, it's an interesting solution.
Does it really work? I remember Microsoft utilizing a similar approach
for their browser selection tool which led to a skewed probability
dis
On 06.09.2016 20:46, Tim Peters wrote:
[Sven R. Kunze ]
...
He already convinced some people. Just not some venerable Python devs, which
doesn't necessarily mean something at all.
Their response: "Oh, I don't need it, let's close it."
Arek: "But I need it."
So, who's right now?
By default, th
(Just to be clear, I wasn't trying to suggest this as more than an ad-hoc
solution for a throwaway script. But to me, "sorted by random key" is
almost as obvious as "shuffled", perhaps more so for non english speakers
with little background in CS terms; the words "sorted" and "random" jumps
to the
On 09/06/2016 03:37 PM, Sven R. Kunze wrote:
Besides being a silly argument, it's an interesting solution.
Does it really work? I remember Microsoft utilizing a similar approach
for their browser selection tool which led to a skewed probability
distribution. Maybe, I wrong here though.
Yes.
[Sven R. Kunze ]
> ...
> He already convinced some people. Just not some venerable Python devs, which
> doesn't necessarily mean something at all.
>
> Their response: "Oh, I don't need it, let's close it."
> Arek: "But I need it."
>
> So, who's right now?
By default, the venerable Python devs ;-)
Are you serious? The reason for "we don't need standardization" ==
"there is a solution, long, and with a lot of special characters". Holy
c***. I remember Python being the least verbose language on the planet.
I suspect this argument didn't lead to status quo. It's like saying, we
don't need v
Naive shuffled() can be emulated using a single expression:
sorted(lst, key=lambda _: random())
So there's even less incentive for standardization.
~Elazar
___
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinf
On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 4:15 AM, Sven R. Kunze wrote:
> It's community project after all.
What's that mean, exactly? That the community gets to vote on what
goes into Python? Because we don't.
ChrisA
___
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
Hi Steven,
On 06.09.2016 18:32, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 05:29:18PM +0200, Arek Bulski wrote:
[I think Arek is quoting me here]
One moderately stong piece of evidence would be if this function is widely
available in third-party libraries and other languages.
Wrong. Pytho
Steven D'Aprano writes:
> If your only argument is to continue to insist that Python should
> have a shuffled() function and you'll write a patch, it will go no
> where. First you have to convince people that the patch is needed.
It's not worth the effort. The previous attempt (issue26393) to
On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 05:29:18PM +0200, Arek Bulski wrote:
[I think Arek is quoting me here]
> > One moderately stong piece of evidence would be if this function is widely
> > available in third-party libraries and other languages.
>
> Wrong. Python is NOT known for doing everything by how it w
> And if random.shuffle() returned a new list, other people would be bitten
because they expected it to be in-place.
No one proposes that. shuffled() should be a new function.
> One moderately stong piece of evidence would be if this function is widely
available in third-party libraries and other
If so, then I would suggest than each list provides a .shuffle method as
well (just as sorted/sort does).
On 06.09.2016 06:34, Mahmoud Hashemi wrote:
I tend to agree with Arek. I've been bitten multiple times, including
once yesterday, because shuffle works in place, when I really expect a
so
On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 11:43:54AM +0200, Arek Bulski wrote:
> They closed it. Will they accept a patch if I send it?
Truth is, probably not. You would need to convince Raymond (and to a
lesser extent, Tim) that this is a good idea. See my last email for the
*minimum* of what you would need to
On 09/06/2016 05:43 AM, Arek Bulski wrote:
> They closed it. Will they accept a patch if I send it?
In all likelihood, no. However, if you want to advocate for this change,
and try to change their minds, I suggest you read and follow the
suggestions that Steven D'Aprano gave you in an earlier emai
They closed it. Will they accept a patch if I send it?
Where is the repo for the code? Never submitted anything to py code base.
-- Arkadiusz Bulski --
___
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python
On Mon, Sep 05, 2016 at 09:34:05PM -0700, Mahmoud Hashemi wrote:
> I tend to agree with Arek. I've been bitten multiple times, including once
> yesterday, because shuffle works in place, when I really expect a
> sorted()-like behavior for a standalone function like that.
*shrug*
And if random.sh
I tend to agree with Arek. I've been bitten multiple times, including once
yesterday, because shuffle works in place, when I really expect a
sorted()-like behavior for a standalone function like that.
Mahmoud
https://github.com/mahmoud
http://sedimental.org
On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 6:59 PM, Arek Bu
On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 03:59:10AM +0200, Arek Bulski wrote:
> Implementing this in pure python wont take a lot of work.
Great. Well, here's a tracker issue for it.
http://bugs.python.org/issue27964
Can you provide a patch? Don't forget the tests and documentation.
Providing a patch doesn't m
shuffled() should be in the random module, of course. I dont suggest a
builtin. Although now that you mentioned it, I could go for that too.
There are usage cases where its heavily used, in randomized testing for
example. I am sure that there are also other domains where randomization of
lists is
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 02:50:02AM +0200, Arek Bulski wrote:
>
>> We should add shuffled() analog to sorted. Also shuffle() should return
>> self so mutating methods could be chained.
>
> from random import shuffle
> shuffle(mylist)
>
> Why
On 09/05/2016 10:03 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
from random import shuffle
shuffle(mylist)
Why is that so important that it needs to be a built-in? In 15+ years of
using Python, I've probably used shuffle() three or four times.
Just adding to this. Sorting is a problem that comes up in almost
On Tue, Sep 06, 2016 at 02:50:02AM +0200, Arek Bulski wrote:
> We should add shuffled() analog to sorted. Also shuffle() should return
> self so mutating methods could be chained.
from random import shuffle
shuffle(mylist)
Why is that so important that it needs to be a built-in? In 15+ years of
We should add shuffled() analog to sorted. Also shuffle() should return
self so mutating methods could be chained.
-- Arkadiusz Bulski --
___
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of
66 matches
Mail list logo
