2qdxy4rzwzuui...@potatochowder.com writes: > On 2022-07-27 at 17:48:47 +0200, > Regarding "Re: More efficient code, but slower program," > Cecil Westerhof via Python-list <python-list@python.org> wrote: > >> r...@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes: >> >> > Cecil Westerhof <ce...@decebal.nl> writes: >> >>values = [*range(100)] >> > >> > In many cases, any iterable is just fine and a list is not >> > required, just as peudo-random numbers often are just fine and >> > real-world entropy is not required. >> >> In this case both are. I must select (several times) a random element >> from the list. So I need the list. >> I also want the randomness to be as good as possible to make the >> 'simulation' as good as possible. > > "[A]s good as possible" for simulations and tests may not require the > cryptographic quality numbers from SystemRandom. Many/most pseudo > random number generators are optimized for statistically normalized > outputs, and are repeatable as a bonus (again, often a requirement for > certain types of simulations; YMMV). > > Also, what if you shuffled the list first (e.g., with random.shuffle) > and then iterated through it directly? Repeatedly removing arbitrary > elements from the middle of a list is potentially expensive.
Someone else also mentioned that. I think I should put it on my list of things to do/try. -- Cecil Westerhof Senior Software Engineer LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cecilwesterhof -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
