Message 316499 - Python tracker

➜

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	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.

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