Code organisation and other things well done
You've extracted the algorithm in a function on its own. Also, you've written you code behind the "if name == main" guard. Congratulations on this, these are two good things beginners usually don't do properly.
This makes your code clearer, easier to maintain and easier to test.
Also, I'd like to take this chance to congratulate you for using
_ as a name for a throw-away value which is quite a nice habit.
Finally, you did notice that there was not point in looping over the whole string once you've reached the middle.
Getting rid of useless things
It seems that perfection is attained not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing more to remove. - Antoine de Saint Exupéry
I can see in your code artifacts of old versions of your code :
revarr are not used at all. Also you don't need to define
i before the loop.
continue is nice keyword, available in most programming languages. However, from my experience, you don't need it that often. In your case, you might as will just write :
if sdiff != rdiff:
0 is not required as a first argument to
Python has a style guide called PEP 8. It is definitly worth a read. You'll find various tools online to check your code's compliancy to PEP 8. From what I can see, the main "issue" is that the function name is
CamelCased and not
If you wanted to do things properly, it might be interesting to add some documentation to your function.
More details (and personal preferences)
We have a nice ternary operator in Python. Using it, you could write :
print("Funny" if is_funny(word) else "Not Funny")
is_funny function looks like the typical situation where you could use the
any Python builtin. However, because of the length of the expressions involved, it becomes a bit of a matter of personal preference. I'd write this (but you don't have to like it) :
"""Check if a word is funny."""
length = len(word)
abs(ord(word[i])-ord(word[i+1])) == abs(ord(word[length-i-1])-ord(word[length-i-2]))
for i in range(math.ceil(length/2))
Another thing that could be changed but might not make the code clearer to every one is the way you get the n-th element of the reversed string. You can use
word[length-i-1] like you did but you can also take the most out of Python's index handling : negative indices are taken from the end of the container. So that you can write
word[-i-1] instead (and the same principle applies to