This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author xksteven
Recipients Christian.Kleineidam, NeilGirdhar, aisaac, dkorchem, madison.may, mark.dickinson, pitrou, rhettinger, serhiy.storchaka, tim.peters, westley.martinez, xksteven
Date 2016-03-30.07:11:54
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <>
Hello rhettinger.  I filled out the form thanks for letting me know about it.  Is there anything else I have to do?

Hey serhiy.storchaka

There were several things "wrong" with the previous implementation in my opinion. 

1st they tried to add too much.  Which would if allowed would clutter up the random library if every function had both it's implementation as well as an accompanied generator.  The other problem being that both were attempted to be made as callable to the public API.  I would prefer the generator if present to be hidden and would also have to be more sophisticated to be able to check if it was being called with new input.

2nd by adding in the generator to the pulbic API of the random library it makes it far more confusing and obfuscates the true purpose of this function anyways which is to get a weighted choice.  

So basically there is nothing wrong with generators but they don't necessarily belong here so I removed it to try to get back to the core principles of what the function should be doing, by making it simpler.
Date User Action Args
2016-03-30 07:11:55xkstevensetrecipients: + xksteven, tim.peters, rhettinger, mark.dickinson, pitrou, aisaac, westley.martinez, serhiy.storchaka, NeilGirdhar, madison.may, dkorchem, Christian.Kleineidam
2016-03-30 07:11:55xkstevensetmessageid: <>
2016-03-30 07:11:55xkstevenlinkissue18844 messages
2016-03-30 07:11:54xkstevencreate