grutte_pier profile - python coding challenges

5

ogre

All the "any"'s-ogre

The explicit _bool()_ conversion can be removed, as you are already working with booleans More

7

luvs

Second-luvs

Much better than your first :D More

18

tarasenkoa

First-tarasenkoa 1

Did you forget to remove the 'debug-prints'? More

2

erick.kusnadi.75

Solution to Problem 1-erick.kusnadi.75

I came up with the same idea, so I like it (+1), except that you destroy the input list. I don't think the users of your code expect that to happen (-1) ;) More

8

ricardo0y

First-ricardo0y 1

Why not _sub('[a-z]', '', text)_ ? More

7

karel_chajim

duh, not nice, but working-karel_chajim

Why do you call it not nice? What would you rather have written different? More

57

veky

for else-veky 1

Hm, somewhere in the back of my mind I knew of this _for-else_ construct. But in this particular case I don't think it does anything, does it? Or in other words: if you would remove the _else:_, and just type _return False_ as the last line, nothing would change, would it? More

13

abaletinskikh

First-abaletinskikh

Python is no bash - please don't use capitalised variable names More

8

IlyaM66

First-IlyaM66

I tried a EAFP approach first as well, until I realised that a negative index is not a problem in Python. Then I had to change it to something that more or less does the same as your solution, except that I used some different constructs. What I don't like about this particular implementation is th More

8

RomanLubyanoy

First-RomanLubyanoy

There are quite a few things here that could use improvement: * Don't set _r_size = len(grid) -1_ and then do _i <= r_size_. Rather just compare _i < r_size_ - this is much more 'standard' in all programming languages that exist * Comparing a boolean value against _False_ is as bad as it gets, agai More

10

AlexGiesbrecht

First-AlexGiesbrecht

Excellent solution, reminding us all of the possibility to add a step to the slice operator More

11

flex

First-flex

You could skip calculation of the average, because _len(l)_ will be the same for each row, or in other words: _index(max(sum))==index(max(avg))_ More

2

johnarvee

First-johnarvee

You also destroy the input list - I'm not sure the users of your code were expecting that to happen! More

11

tamsayhi

Xs and Os Referee-tamsayhi

Hm, to me straightforward is not the same as clear - comparing this solution to others, I think the category 'clear' is not quite correct - it should probably be 'creative', as it took me quite a while to figure everything out More

9

andrew.daniel.walsh

Second-andrew.daniel.walsh

Why adding a default argument to the _checkio_ function - just define marks as the first line in the function body More

4

saktiaish

First-saktiaish

I don't think you need to call the _data[:]_ syntax a 'trick': it is really just standard Python; used by a lot of code out there when in need of a copy of a list More

6

irvcov

First-irvcov

You could actually do _count += is_safe_ :D More

6

bluewaters

First-bluewaters

You were probably not aware yet of the _**_ operator in Python? See https://docs.python.org/2/tutorial/introduction.html#id1 More

15

Corwine

First-Corwine 1

Instead of _reversed(range(a, b))_ you could also use the simpler _range(b-1, a-1, -1)_. And instead of setting the _changed_ variable and checking for it, you could use the _for-else_ syntax More

18

natsuki

First-natsuki

I see _return 'D'_ twice .... a clear indication that the algorithm needs improvement More