sorted clear solution for Min and Max by Cjkjvfnby - python coding challenges

Enable Javascript in your browser and then refresh this page, for a much enhanced experience.

sorted solution in Clear category for Min and Max by Cjkjvfnby

def get_first_from_sorted(args, key, reverse):
    if len(args) == 1:
        args = iter(args[0])
    return sorted(args, key=key, reverse=reverse)[0]


def min(*args, key=None):
    return get_first_from_sorted(args, key, False)


def max(*args, key=None):
    return get_first_from_sorted(args, key, True)

May 8, 2014

Comments:

Sim0000 on May 8, 2014, 11:31 a.m.
You don't need iter.

etiology on Sept. 18, 2016, 2:26 a.m.
I think you need it for at least the dict test. From what I can tell it fails without iter() ```python assert min({'a': 1, 'b': 2}) == 'a' ```

Farrous on Jan. 11, 2018, 7:24 p.m.
That's what I was wondering. It seemed redundant to me, so I ran the code after I deleted it, and it worked fine as well ( Maybe etiology is right about the dict test ).

Farrous on Jan. 11, 2018, 7:25 p.m.
That’s what I was wondering. It seemed redundant to me, so I ran the code after I deleted it, and it worked fine as well ( Maybe etiology is right about the dict test ).

Reloader on May 10, 2014, 5:12 p.m.
Geniously!

tdietert on June 28, 2014, 3 p.m.
So brilliantly brilliant... I spent 4 hours on this challenge and wrote 100+ lines of code attempting to account for different data types when all I needed was iter(args[0]) or just args... Thank you for showing me the way of the python! XD

svilgelm on July 8, 2014, 9:11 a.m.
Wonderful

scorpil on Aug. 1, 2014, 11:48 a.m.
Nice, but not terribly efficient ;)

Cjkjvfnby on Aug. 1, 2014, 1:03 p.m.
Can you say terribly efficient in simple words? I don't get what you mean.

scorpil on Aug. 4, 2014, 12:26 p.m.
Sorting operation on average takes O(n log n) time to finish. You could get min/max element in O(n) by just checking elements in loop. Your decision is not optimal from performance perspective, it's just a little bit slower, but on the other hand it's much more readable. So all things considered i think it is a great solution. Just wanted everyone to know it has it's downsides.

maurice.makaay on Oct. 29, 2014, 11:16 p.m.
I saw the same 'issue' too when reading the code. For large input data, the algorithm will consume more memory and processing time. When iterating in a loop and comparing pairs, the code is a lot more light weight. But as a solution this one indeed is very readable and might be sufficient in many cases, but it's not likely to be how things are implemented within Python.

mreinhardt on June 6, 2015, 6:30 a.m.
"Nice, but not [very fast] ;)"

artemrudenko on Sept. 3, 2014, 8:45 a.m.
Awesome))) I have used almost the same idea, however i have created too many redundant checks

oduvan on Sept. 11, 2014, 4:12 p.m.
I like the idea here of not using the third function <a href="http://www.checkio.org/mission/min-max/publications/samulih/python-27/first/">http://www.checkio.org/mission/min-max/publications/samulih/python-27/first/</a>

Cjkjvfnby on Sept. 11, 2014, 5:26 p.m.
Python min has no reverse keyword. This solution is not exact implementation of min.

veky on Sept. 24, 2014, 2:04 a.m.
Nothing is an exact implementation of min in Python (except maybe in case of PyPy). ;-]

ArchTauruS on Sept. 15, 2014, 5:52 a.m.
very clear code!

lezeroq on May 8, 2015, 10:23 p.m.
Check for iterator stRange <pre class='brush: python'>class strange: s = 0 i = 0 def __init__(self, n): self.n = n def __iter__(self): self.s += 10 return self def __next__(self): if self.i < self.n: i = self.i self.i += 1 return i + self.s else: raise StopIteration() assert max(strange(10)) == 19 </pre> Buildin max function returns 19 for max(strage(10)) and your max returns 29 (python 3.4) (_ iter _ called once. You do it twice)

shenwsshen on May 13, 2015, 12:03 p.m.
so smart!!!!!

wadada220104 on Sept. 27, 2022, 6:39 a.m.
You're right.So I try to find the problem is.The code "args = iter(args[0])" not right because when create the iter, the strange class will call the iter. So the self.s will be 20. If I change it into list(args[0]), it will get the right result

RadkampfBRB on Aug. 18, 2015, 8:34 p.m.
Impressive!! A pleasure to read.

leusgalvan on Sept. 24, 2015, 1:10 a.m.
Is there any way to make the expression sorted(...)[0] get evaluated lazily? In that case, you would get linear time for min and max, I think.

nanpa on Nov. 16, 2015, 6:39 a.m.
Sorted()? Wonderful!

greyfenrir on Nov. 29, 2015, 7:11 a.m.
short, but can be slow

syntaxaire on Dec. 12, 2015, 12:24 a.m.
The category is Clear, not Efficient. And this is very Clear.

cmantas on Dec. 23, 2015, 12:21 p.m.
To be honest, I thing using a built-in sorting function is basically ""cheating"" (sort-of)

ludek.reif on Feb. 19, 2016, 10:36 a.m.
Good idea - sorted!

ljy95135 on May 16, 2016, 8:51 a.m.
sorted is great! Why I spend lines to compute the minimum or maximum

etiology on Sept. 18, 2016, 2:26 a.m.
well done!

akhripko on Sept. 29, 2016, 1:43 p.m.
sorting is redundant

lorenfar on Oct. 1, 2016, 9 a.m.
The reverse=True trick is very neat !

Thenbacker on Oct. 2, 2016, 5:02 p.m.
Truly pythonic, wonderful to see such a short and elegant solution compared to mine!

PaulHarley on Nov. 16, 2016, 9:20 p.m.
This is a wonderful solution. Leveraging the power of built-in function iter is a great idea. Wish I had thought of it! Of course the clue is in the <a href="https://docs.python.org/2/library/functions.html#iter">Python docs</a> for iter. See how the arguments are treated the exact same way as required in the problem statement! Genius!

zwelden on March 27, 2017, 7:43 p.m.
Nice!

abehad701 on June 6, 2017, 12:22 a.m.
nice use of iter. i'm going to try that

vinitrinh on July 2, 2017, 7:19 a.m.
WHAT? 12 lines?! Get out of here!

Phil15 on March 13, 2018, 1:33 p.m.
I don't like it, why sort all the list when you just want min or max? Bad computational complexity here : if n is the length of the list/iterable... O(n log n) instead of O(n) when you just look the iterable's elements one by one. For me, the purpose here is not use a powerful function like sorted. You smash a mosquito with Thor's hammer. Ok code is shorter, but it's not best so far.

Joni_Braslaver on Sept. 30, 2018, 12:14 p.m.
not really efficent

acarpioanon on Dec. 18, 2018, 9 a.m.
Clear!!

martin.pilka on Feb. 15, 2019, 9:56 p.m.
This solution is an exact copy of the one provided by Hints associated with this task, thus down-voting it. Also, it is very ineffective to use sorted() where only min/max is needed.

wangjianyu557 on Dec. 17, 2021, 2:59 p.m.
clear and creative

GitHub

0 %

PyCharm The Python IDE for Professional Developers. Enjoy productive Python, web and scientific development with PyCharm. Download it now!