Message316499
| Author | steven.daprano |
|---|---|
| Recipients | mark.dickinson, rhettinger, steven.daprano |
| Date | 2018-05-14.11:36:38 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <1526297798.91.0.682650639539.issue33494@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
As mentioned on the Python-List: https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2018-May/733061.html random.choices() silently returns the wrong values when cumulative weights are not given, i.e. if the user misreads the documentation and provides non-cumulative weights, expecting that cumulative weights will be constructed for them. I think that the documentation should be more clear, and preferably the choices() function ought to fail early when given invalid weights. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2018-05-14 11:36:38 | steven.daprano | set | recipients: + steven.daprano, rhettinger, mark.dickinson |
| 2018-05-14 11:36:38 | steven.daprano | set | messageid: <1526297798.91.0.682650639539.issue33494@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2018-05-14 11:36:38 | steven.daprano | link | issue33494 messages |
| 2018-05-14 11:36:38 | steven.daprano | create | |