Timeline for Can this code, to convert string to integer, be made more compact?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 20, 2019 at 12:54 | history | edited | eric.m | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Alternative to isdigit() and fixed range calculation.
|
| Aug 9, 2019 at 15:30 | vote | accept | tarit goswami | ||
| Aug 8, 2019 at 6:35 | history | edited | eric.m | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited body
|
| Aug 7, 2019 at 17:10 | comment | added | Roberto |
Would you also suggest a variable other than "l", given how similar it looks to "1" (if i == l, etc)?
|
|
| Aug 7, 2019 at 16:16 | comment | added | Graipher |
@taritgoswami No, it is a unicode symbol, a 1 that is raised, to be used as an exponent,. It still counts as a digit to str,isdigit, but int("¹") fails with a ValueError. So using str.isdigit is not sufficient to reject values that are not parseable by int. Your only options are explicitly whitelisting only the ASCII digits (which is what string.digits contains), or by trying to parse a digit with int and skipping it if an exception is raised.
|
|
| Aug 7, 2019 at 16:10 | comment | added | tarit goswami |
@Graipher Thanks for mentioning. Is it "1".isdigit()?
|
|
| Aug 7, 2019 at 14:01 | comment | added | Graipher |
Beware, though, even isdigit has its flaws. "¹".isdigit() returns True. The only way to be really sure I know of is to test x in set(string.digits) or similar.
|
|
| Aug 7, 2019 at 13:59 | comment | added | tarit goswami | Thanks for your time :) Can I get any suggestion about analyzing and noting down all requirements for this kind of problems? | |
| Aug 7, 2019 at 9:15 | comment | added | Toby Speight | Oh, absolutely - I was just having a little fun with the words! | |
| Aug 7, 2019 at 9:12 | history | edited | eric.m | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 101 characters in body
|
| Aug 7, 2019 at 9:10 | comment | added | eric.m | I thought he meant compact in less lines or less code. I cannot see any benefit of removing whitespaces when they make the code more readable. | |
| Aug 7, 2019 at 8:54 | comment | added | Toby Speight | If the requirement really is to make the code "more compact", then perhaps it's reasonable to throw PEP-8 out of the window. But it does make us ask, "why is that a goal??".... | |
| Aug 7, 2019 at 8:36 | history | answered | eric.m | CC BY-SA 4.0 |