31
Cjkjvfnby
10 30 43
5274/ 5695
Andrey Solomatin
Last seen 1 year ago
Member for 11 years, 2 months, 8 days
Difficulty Normal
Best reviews / Newest reviews
Should have used recursion-belerris
If you change regexpr to '\w\w+' no need to check **len** in **check** Use generator expressions. It makes code faster and more readable. And you can avoid creating new variable # count = [] # for i in text: # count.append(check(i)) # print(count) # retur More
First-matuyuji
Why you use **lambda**? Use **in** to check element present in collection. Pyhton slice notation has argument step. Variable name should tell as about its content, what can tell us this set of names: **l o s e w ne no ve vo ce co ch** More
template-veky 2
You can use empty string in fillvalue. "reform" is little tricky. Why you put **import** inside function body? More
Generator-guido 1
Why generator? Is simple function is more suitable for case then need first result? More
First-thuvh
Number of garbage comments too damn high. If someone place comments to task template that does not mean you should place them to solution. More
First-bukebuer
**number%3==0 and number%5==0** same as **number%15==0** More
First-jcg
checkio_1: no: **result =** yes: **return** checkio_2: no: **for pair in specif** yes: **for val, word in specif** checkio_2: no **if result != []:** yes: **if result:** More
First-jcg
Article about FizzBuzz from Jeff Atwood (Stack Overflow creator) http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2007/02/why-cant-programmers-program.html More
First-mgaby
no: **msg = msg +** yes: **msg +=** More
First-josue.quirosvalverde
Use **number % 15** instead of nested **if**, It will make code more flat. More
First-sodium
PEP8: While sometimes it's okay to put an if/for/while with a small body on the same line, never do this for multi-clause statements. Also avoid folding such long lines! Rather not: if foo == 'blah': do_blah_thing() for x in lst: total += x while t < 10: t = delay() Definitely More
First-madmanbob
PEP8: For sequences, (strings, lists, tuples), use the fact that empty sequences are false. Yes: if not seq: if seq: More
First-RRRQ 1
I suggest you to use hints: This task can be solved using Lists indexes, Slices and Built-in Function "sum". More
First-bukebuer
you can use **''.join(words[i: i+3])** More
First-gyahun_dash 1
not: **k == True and** yes: **k and** This solution is to bulky for clear. More
1st Three Words_51-turtle51
you can use return instead of **r = True; break** More
First-satox
no: **if s.isalpha() == True:** yes: **if s.isalpha():** you can replace **if s.isdigit() == True:** to **else:** More
First-ciel 1
lambda is not suitable in that case. More
First-RRRQ 1
no: **if len( args ) == 0** yes: **if not args** no: **argslist = list( args ); argslist.sort()** yes: **argslist = sorted(args)** Why you need abs? More
First-lolo_bv
line 14: http://www.checkio.org/forum/post/1618/proper-way-to-check-if-sequence-is-empty/ More
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12
13 14 15