@BethanyG I feel like there's a better way to formulate this variant of the dict and generator approach, but nothing's coming to mind... list doesn't seem to have something like dict.get().

def score(x_coord, y_coord):
    throw = x_coord**2 + y_coord**2
    rules = {1: 10, 25: 5, 100: 1}
    
    return ([point for distance, point in
               rules.items() if throw <= distance]
               or [0])[0] # <-- Have to specify index 0.

@BethanyG I feel like there's a better way to formulate this variant of the dict and generator approach, but nothing's coming to mind... list doesn't seem to have something like dict.get().

def score(x_coord, y_coord):
    throw = x_coord**2 + y_coord**2
    rules = {1: 10, 25: 5, 100: 1}
    
    return ([point for distance, point in
               rules.items() if throw <= distance]
               or [0])[0] # <-- Have to specify index 0.

That's also not a generator. It is making a list in memory. Lemme play with it. ooooh (you can tell I am tired) nevermind. I am an idiot. I will noodle on it.

Yeah, most of the variants of the dict and generator approach actually use generator expressions, but for some reason this one is just a list comprehension. I'll try to take a look at it again tomorrow if I have time.

I feel like this is every bit as awkward (guess it follows the text about needing an index tho):

def score(x_coord, y_coord):
    throw = x_coord**2 + y_coord**2
    rules = {1: 10, 25: 5, 100: 1, 1000: 0}
    result = [rules.get(distance, 0) for distance in
               rules.keys() if throw <= distance][0]
    
    return result

I guess we could unpack it as a generator?

def score(x_coord, y_coord):
    throw = x_coord**2 + y_coord**2
    rules = {1: 10, 25: 5, 100: 1, 1000: 0}
    result = (rules.get(distance, 0) for distance in
               rules.keys() if throw <= distance)
    
    return next(result)

Feels entirely over-engineered and clever. Also requires a 4th entry in the dict.

This works too, but now I need a shower to wash off the ick:

def score(x_coord, y_coord):
    throw = x_coord**2 + y_coord**2
    rules = {1: 10, 25: 5, 100: 1, 1000: 0}
    
    return next(rules.get(distance, 0) for distance in rules.keys() if throw <= distance)

...

def score(x_coord, y_coord):
    throw = x_coord**2 + y_coord**2
    rules = {1: 10, 25: 5, 100: 1}
    
    return next(rules.get(distance, 0) for distance in 
                       (1, 25, 100, 1000) if throw <= distance)

Or

def score(x_coord, y_coord):
    throw = x_coord**2 + y_coord**2
    rules = {1: 10, 25: 5, 100: 1}
    result = next(rules.get(distance, 0) for distance in
                          (1, 25, 100, 1000) if throw <= distance)
    
    return result

Yeah that last one isn't very readable. Also half the point of changing it in the first place was to get rid of the fourth dict entry 😅. Hopefully I'll have time to come back to this tomorrow... Maybe one of us will have a new idea to try by then.

I'm beat. Time to watch bad TV and knit. See you fresh in the AM. 💙

New idea:

from math import inf

def score(x_coord, y_coord):
    throw = x_coord**2 + y_coord**2
    rules = {1: 10, 25: 5, 100: 1, inf: 0}
    
    return [point for distance, point in
                rules.items() if throw <= distance][0] # <-- Have to specify index 0.

Fairly clean, but requires an import.

Works for me. 😄

Worried that if you or I give it one more read, there will be changes. Shall we let it sit for a bit for rereivew, or are you ready to merge?

I think it would probably be a good idea to wait for a day and then re-review. Looking at the changes again with fresh eyes might spot previously-unseen mistake(s). (I don't trust myself enough to believe that there aren't any on this big of a change.)

Heya @Yrahcaz7

I just went over this again and am not seeing anything more to correct. So if you are happy with this, I will merge it! Thanks again for all the hard work here. 🙂

I looked it over one more time just in case, but it looks good! Feel free to merge!