# Balanced smileys check algorithm (part 2)

This is a follow-up for here.

Problem

Your friend John uses a lot of emoticons when you talk to him on Messenger. In addition to being a person who likes to express himself through emoticons, he hates unbalanced parenthesis so much that it makes him go :(

Sometimes he puts emoticons within parentheses, and you find it hard to tell if a parenthesis really is a parenthesis or part of an emoticon.

A message has balanced parentheses if it consists of one of the following:

• An empty string ""
• One or more of the following characters: 'a' to 'z', ' ' (a space) or ':' (a colon)
• An open parenthesis '(', followed by a message with balanced parentheses, followed by a close parenthesis ')'.
• A message with balanced parentheses followed by another message with balanced parentheses.
• A smiley face ":)" or a frowny face ":("
• Write a program that determines if there is a way to interpret his message while leaving the parentheses balanced.

I'm working on this balanced smileys checking algorithm, and my current solution is very naive, with just two rules:

1. At any point, the number of ) (close) should be less than the number of ( (open) + number of :( (frown)
2. At the end, the number of ( (open) should be less than the number of ) (close) and :) (smile)

I'm wondering if any bugs in my checking logic. Any advice on algorithm time complexity improvement or code style advice is highly appreciated as well.

def check_balance(source):
left = 0
right = 0
frown = 0
smile = 0
for i,c in enumerate(source):
if c == '(':
left += 1
if i > 0 and source[i-1] == ':': # :(
left -= 1
frown += 1
elif c == ')':
right += 1
if i > 0 and source[i-1] == ':': # :)
right -= 1
smile += 1
if left + frown < right:
return False
if left > right + smile:
return False
return True
if __name__ == "__main__":
raw_smile_string = 'abc(b:)cdef(:()'
print check_balance(raw_smile_string)

• You've asked a lot of questions on Code Review. Please do a better job picking tags for your questions. In this case, since you're asking a follow-up question, it should have been obvious which tags to use. Feb 8 '17 at 18:48
• @200_success, would love to follow your advice, for follow-up question, what is the suggested tag? Feb 9 '17 at 7:00
• Well, I added balanced-delimiters to the previous question, so obviously it should apply to this question too. Feb 9 '17 at 7:02
• @200_success, for sure, thanks. Is it possible I can add some tags? So that if I post different version of code, I can refer old post by tag (from the new version of code post)? Feb 9 '17 at 20:34

## 2 Answers

• In the verbal description of the algorithm, "should be less than" implies "not equal", which would not be correct. A wording such as "must be at most" would be totally clear.
• Your code has a bug because you are not quite following rule 1. The rule says "at any point...", but you only check the rule after a smiley. You miss the case when a lone ) breaks the rule.
• Instead of canceling += 1 with -= 1 here...

left += 1
if i > 0 and source[i-1] == ':': # :(
left -= 1
frown += 1


... it would be clearer to use else:

if i > 0 and source[i-1] == ':': # :(
frown += 1
else:
left += 1

• Instead of if i > 0 and source[i-1] == ':' it would be simpler to remember the previous character in a variable:

 previous_char = None
for char in source:
if char == 'c':
if previous_char == ':':
...
previous_char = char

• instead of manually setting the previous character in a variable, it would be clearer to use the itertools' pairwise recipe Feb 9 '17 at 10:04
• @MathiasEttinger Good idea, but then checking if the first character of the string is ( or ) would be a special case. Feb 9 '17 at 12:54
• Not necessarily, you just need to adapt pairwise: a, b = tee(iterable); yield next(a), None; yield from zip(a, b). And you iterate over with for char, previous in …. Feb 9 '17 at 13:48
• Thanks Janne, I post a new thread (codereview.stackexchange.com/questions/154783/…) to address your comments, if you have advice on that, it will be great. Mark your reply as answer. Feb 9 '17 at 20:38

Some notes:

• Variable naming
• Can be greatly improved by the use of an IDE like IDEA which supports trivial variable renaming.
• Don't use single character variables, index and character (or even char) is much more readable than i and c.
• It's not immediately obvious what any of the variables are.
• You only have one test case. There should be test cases including and excluding each of the types of content of a message. If you get started with the simplest one you can even use TDD to get to a working but simple design.
• Knowing the index of the unbalanced parenthesis would be nice.
• Checking the number of parentheses is not enough, you have to whether they match up. For example, your algorithm fails (reports True when it shouldn't) on strings like )(.
• The assignment calls for a recursive solution:

A message has balanced parentheses if it consists of one of the following: […] An open parenthesis '(', followed by a message with balanced parentheses, followed by a close parenthesis ')'.

This means that within each pair of parentheses there must be a valid message, meaning all the rules apply within them.

• Hi l0b0, I have the same question from @JanneKarila, if you could help to clarify, it will be great. Feb 9 '17 at 7:01
• Hi l0b0, are there any code logical bug (for logical, I mean my code returns wrong conclusion about True/False for balance or not) in my posted code? Feb 9 '17 at 7:01
• I did post an example of input leading to the wrong conclusion. And which "same question" do you refer to?
– l0b0
Feb 9 '17 at 8:39
• Thanks l0b0, I think you mean the example of )(? Feb 9 '17 at 20:35
• BTW l0b0, I post a new thread (codereview.stackexchange.com/questions/154783/…) to address your comments, if you have advice on that, it will be great. Vote up for all of your comments. Feb 9 '17 at 20:38