Message196567
| Author |
madison.may |
| Recipients |
aisaac, madison.may, mark.dickinson, pitrou, rhettinger, serhiy.storchaka, tim.peters |
| Date |
2013-08-30.18:16:29 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1377886590.31.0.127357175614.issue18844@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
|
| Content |
[Mark Dickinson]
> Both those seem like clear error conditions to me, though I think it would be fine if the second condition produced a ZeroDivisionError rather than a ValueError.
Yeah, in hindsight it makes sense that both of those conditions should raise errors. After all: "Explicit is better than implicit".
As far as optimization goes, could we potentially use functools.lru_cache to cache the cumulative distribution produced by the weights argument and optimize repeated sampling?
Without @lru_cache:
>>> timeit.timeit("x = choice(list(range(100)), list(range(100)))", setup="from random import choice", number=100000)
36.7109281539997
With @lru_cache(max=128):
>>> timeit.timeit("x = choice(list(range(100)), list(range(100)))", setup="from random import choice", number=100000)
6.6788657720007905
Of course it's a contrived example, but you get the idea.
Walker's aliasing method looks intriguing. I'll have to give it a closer look.
I agree that an efficient implementation would be preferable but would feel out of place in random because of the return type. I still believe a relatively inefficient addition to random.choice would be valuable, though. |
|