On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 22:20:24 -0800, Paul Rubin wrote: > Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> If you want to avoid shuffle, here's an alternative: >> >> def random_values(n, valuelist=[True, False]): >> N = len(valuelist) >> for _ in range(N*n): >> yield valuelist[random.randrange(0, N)] > > That is not guaranteed to yield exactly equal numbers of true and false.
Neither is any random number generator. That's why because it's *random*. Ah, I see what you mean... you're reminding me that the Original Poster seems to want a biased set of almost-but-not-quite-randomly chosen values, so that random_values(1) must return one each of True and False and never True, True or False, False. You're right, that's how the O.P. implicitly specified the problem. But it may not be what he wants. -- Steven D'Aprano -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
