ord clear solution for Pawn Brotherhood by gyahun_dash - python coding challenges

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

ord solution in Clear category for Pawn Brotherhood by gyahun_dash

def getdiags(pawn):
    c, r = map(ord, pawn)
    return chr(c - 1) + chr(r - 1), chr(c + 1) + chr(r - 1)

def safe_pawns(pawns):
    return len([p for p in pawns if any(d in pawns for d in getdiags(p))])

July 30, 2014

Comments:

hanpari on Aug. 1, 2014, 6:45 p.m.
Better than your previous i9 :)

gyahun_dash on Aug. 2, 2014, 7:37 a.m.
Thank you. I published them because I want to know which you like better.

Cjkjvfnby on Aug. 5, 2014, 10:07 p.m.
string formatting will make it more readable '%c%c'. you can use set methods to find intersection.

gyahun_dash on Aug. 6, 2014, 2:54 p.m.
<blockquote> string formatting will make it more readable '%c%c'. </blockquote> I've heard that we would rather not use printf-style because it can be deprecated and Template & Formatter have proposed instead of it. If I use any formats: <pre class='brush: python'>form = '{:c}{:c}'.format def getdiags(pawn): c, r = map(ord, pawn) return form(c - 1, r - 1), form(c + 1, r - 1) </pre> <blockquote> you can use set methods to find intersection. </blockquote> Oh, I forgot pawns were set. Thank you.

veky on Nov. 25, 2015, 12:59 a.m.
What @Cjkjvfnby said -- just return {..., ...}, a set, from protectors() ("get" is really a non-word here), and your condition can be written <pre class='brush: python'>... if pawns & protectors(pawn) </pre> But a more important point. <pre class='brush: python'>len([p for p in pawns if condition]) ~~~> sum(bool(condition) for p in pawns) </pre> (`bool` is not usually needed, but here it is, since you're not counting intersections, only whether they're nonempty). Faster, reads more easily (once you know about Iverson, which everybody should:), less visual noise, and doesn't waste memory constructing a whole list just so you can take a `len` of it. <hr /> `.format` approach is nice. You could even say ('{:c}'*2).format to minimize repetition. :-D Or if you feel that you shouldn't even speak about low-level functions `chr` and `ord`, you can use Python's serialization protocol: <pre class='brush: python'>form = lambda *args: bytes(args).decode() c, r = pawn.encode() ... </pre> ;-) <putting my clown hat> You could even encode that pawn into something easier to work with as one component: <pre class='brush: python'>z = complex(*pawn.encode()) - 1j return {form(z-1), form(z+1)} </pre> Or even <pre class='brush: python'>d = int(pawn, 18) return form(d-19), form(d-17) </pre> But that's just perverse. :-D </puttting my clown hat> The important point is, %-formatting is perfectly fine for quick&dirty assembling of a string. "it can be deprecated" is not really a property. Everything can be deprecated (except whitespace, sensitivity, of course;)). But if you wanted to say it's more likely to be deprecated than some other methods, I wouldn't say so. People are still playing with notations for formatting - for example, <a href="https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0498/">PEP 498</a> will be implemented in Py3.6, giving us yet another way to do it - and not only that, but Guido has already said that ideally, every string should be a format string (with `{...}` slots). Of course, the point is to find one obvious way, but we can't do that without experimenting. Probably by Py4.0 some of those ways will be deprecated, but it would be very premature to say which ones. Also, Template and Formatter are two completely different things, and neither of them has anything to do with str.format, which is what was really proposed instead of %-formatting. It's interesting to note that Formatter was deprecated in Py3.4 "due to lack of usage", so the process has already started. But we still have some 5 different ways to do string formatting, and it's hard to see where the things will lead.

jrchionis on Aug. 27, 2024, 4:01 a.m.
You're nuts and I'm so here for it XD

maurice.makaay on Oct. 28, 2014, 5:10 p.m.
The function getdiags() could have a better name. The function is returning board positions on which a pawn would have to be in order to protected the pawn under investigation. I agree that <pre class='brush: python'>get_board_positions_on_which_a_pawn_would_have_to_be_...etc() </pre> would be a bit too long for the code :-), but renaming getdiags() to getprotectors() would already be much clearer, since: <ul> <li>You would be talking about intent and not about implementation. Looking at it differently: when replacing pawns with knights, getprotectors() would still describe the functional need, while getdiags() would have to be renamed to something like getknightyjumps().</li> <li>You are currently not really retrieving diagonals, but only half of them.</li> </ul>

gyahun_dash on Nov. 1, 2014, 3:44 p.m.
Thank you. Next I'll name functions considering implementations. BTW, <blockquote> The function getdiags() could have a better name. (abbr) but renaming getdiags() to getprotectors() would already be much clearer, (abbr) You are currently not really retrieving diagonals, but only half of them. </blockquote> What on earth did you compare with getdiags? :)

maurice.makaay on Nov. 1, 2014, 10:14 p.m.
Im not sure what you mean with that question, but if it is about that last comment that you quoted: half of them, since only two of four diagonal directions are investigated.

gyahun_dash on Nov. 2, 2014, 7:22 a.m.
Sorry, I commented your first sentence misguidedly: "The function getdiags() has a better name."

maurice.makaay on Nov. 2, 2014, 8:24 p.m.
Haha, that's quite confusing indeed. I probably should have said "The function getdiags() could have been named better" to make it sound like proper English ;)

Butch on June 26, 2015, 4:14 a.m.
wow it pretty short!

Hayertjez on Nov. 9, 2015, 11:32 a.m.
Short is not always better, remember :D

veky on Oct. 23, 2017, 9:26 a.m.
It very seldom is, if you control for other confounding variables such as "experience of a person who wrote it". :-P

Sukonnik-Illia on Dec. 24, 2015, 11:27 p.m.
Very clear and easy to read.

hernandezj on Jan. 23, 2016, 10:37 p.m.
Nice method. Sweet and concise. Took me a few minutes to figure it out : )

KODeKarnage on Sept. 13, 2016, 6:47 a.m.
Thank you. Learn something new in the map there.

Ievgenii_Sakhno on Jan. 5, 2017, 12:04 p.m.
very short :)

danny.luker_6f2b7a7a6c6340b297 on Jan. 11, 2017, 6:20 p.m.
Very nice! I learn of ord() and any() from your example. Thanks!

LOACH on Feb. 11, 2017, 2:02 p.m.
Interesting solution, had me looking up any() as I haven't seen it before.

trzyho on Sept. 13, 2018, 1:12 p.m.
great

Igor_Styopin on May 31, 2019, 2:34 p.m.
nice

piter239 on April 18, 2020, 11 a.m.
novel for me usage of map(ord, ...), thanks for the idea!

elpiako on July 7, 2020, 10:24 a.m.
nice usage of map, I did not even think about it, I love your way, but I think I do the same thing in a shortest way :p (<a href="https://py.checkio.org/mission/pawn-brotherhood/publications/elpiako/python-3/shortest-code-except-redundancy-code-for-column-position/)">https://py.checkio.org/mission/pawn-brotherhood/publications/elpiako/python-3/shortest-code-except-redundancy-code-for-column-position/)</a>

Tepminamop on Jan. 16, 2021, 1:04 p.m.
nice

CDG.Axel on Oct. 30, 2021, 12:43 p.m.
hope it slightly shorter or cleaner :) <pre class='brush: python'>def getdiags(pawn, offset=1): c, r = map(ord, pawn) return chr(c + offset) + chr(r - 1) return len([1 for p in pawns if getdiags(p) in pawns or getdiags(p,-1) in pawns) </pre> or this <pre class='brush: python'>def getdiags(pawn, offset=1): c, r = map(ord, pawn) return set((return chr(c - 1) + chr(r - 1), chr(c + 1) + chr(r - 1))) return len([1 for p in pawns if set(pawns) & getdiags(p)]) </pre>

mikaeldovbnia on April 7, 2022, 8:28 p.m.
Nice

Look up in the Dict()

0 %

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