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 that default size. You cannot sort a sequence lazily
You can, but it probably wouldn't be efficient if you need all the values.
On the other hand, if you need just the 3 smaller values of a huge list...
well, that's another topic.
2016-09-08 0:28 GMT-03:00 Nick Coghlan
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 | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
-- Danilo J. S. Bellini --------------- "*It is not our business to set up prohibitions, but to arrive at conventions.*" (R. Carnap)