siebenschlaefer profile - python coding challenges

15

lukas.linhart

Absolute sorting-lukas.linhart 1

FYI: ``sorted()`` takes an optional keyword argument *key*. More

11

PriyaranjanReddyJC

First-PriyaranjanReddyJC 1

Since you filed your solution as "Clean": - You could use more expressive variable names, e.g. `lines` instead of `a`, `max_length` instead of `l`, etc. - Instead of initializing and incrementing a counter in lines 5 and 9 you could use a common python idiom `enumerate`: `for i, x in enumerate(x):` More

33

bukebuer

First-bukebuer 1

FYI: ``lambda x: abs(x)`` is equivalent to ``abs``. More

27

blabaster

First-blabaster 1 1

FYI: You could use `mask = 2 ** second.bit_length() - 1`. More

35

yoichi

First-yoichi 1

FYI: In Python 3 you can write ``h, m = map(int, time.split(":"))`` More

6

globex

Easy-globex 1

- You could replace the magic number ``4`` with ``calendar.FRIDAY``. - Instead of constructing a list and then using its length you could use ``sum()``. More

14

oliwiam96

First-oliwiam96 1

FYI: Your function `binary(n)` is equivalent to `bin(n)[2:]`. More

22

siebenschlaefer

Random fact: The total number of steps in the Eiffel Tower are 1665.-siebenschlaefer 1 1

Your comment sounds like one of the key points of [Structured Programming](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structured_programming). But I've read about this from other experts who advise against following the _single return statement_ policy too religiously. One of the most prominent ones is Steven M More

10

Sayan

First-Sayan 1 1

Donald E. Knuth, one of the most famous computer scientists, wrote that *the bubble sort seems to have nothing to recommend it, except a catchy name and the fact that it leads to some interesting theoretical problems*. Please consider using Python's builtin functions ``list.sort()`` and ``sorted()`` More

12

DJO3

numbers_array1-DJO3 1

FYI: ``sorted`` takes an optional keyword argument *key*. More

15

lukas.linhart

C-lukas.linhart 1

* ``set.add()`` and ``set.discard()`` always return ``None``, so ``return not ...`` saves you an additional ``return True`` but is slightly confusing. * ``Friends.connected(self, name)`` does contain ``name`` even if ``{name, name}`` is in ``self.connections``. More

8

jango1

Clear-jango1 1 1

FYI: Python 3 dropped support for the *cmp* keyword argument. You might consider using the optional keyword argument *key*, which is also much more efficient. More

17

Lipen

First-Lipen 1

FYI: You are working on a very low level. You might want to consider using `datetime.datetime` and `datetime.timedelta` objects, which allow time arithmetic and have methods like `strptime` and `strftime`. More

12

tanukitchen

First-tanukitchen 1

FYI: You could replace the two operations on line 4 with ``ldiv, lmod = divmod(l, 2)``. More

15

MMM_AAA_NNN

First-MMM_AAA_NNN 1 1

Since you filed this under "clear": Don't you think linke 5 would be clearer as ``return int(bitcom, 2) == pattern``? More

19

tihenko

First-tihenko 1

FYI: Instead of three `for`-loops you can use `itertools.combinations(cakes, 3)`. More

12

resilience

Humpty Dumpty Form-resilience 1 1

FYI: Instead of `float("{0:.2f}".format(vol))` you could write `round(vol, 2)`. More

18

Riddick

Funny adition-Riddick 1 1

If you want to keep it as short as possible you could write ``sum(a)`` instead of ``a[0]+a[1]``. More

15

CounterSparta

Sorted-CounterSparta 1

FYI: ``lambda x: abs(x)`` is equivalent to ``abs``. More

35

yoichi

First-yoichi 1

Since you filed your solution under "clear": You could avoid some repetition by rewriting ``go``: ``` def go(p, q): moves = ( (-1, -2), (-1, +2), (+1, -2), (+1, +2), (-2, -1), (-2, +1), (+2, -1), (+2, +1)) for dp, dq in moves: new_pos = (p + dp, q + dq) if al More