100?
Vulwsztyn
Stop using ~~floats and cents for money~~ medium ffs
"stop using medium"
my boring python solution:
from pathlib import Path
def main():
input = Path('input.txt').read_text().split('\n')
names = input[0].split(',')
instructions = input[-1].split(',')
print(names,instructions)
index = 0
for instruction in instructions:
dir = instruction[0]
number = int(instruction[1:])
if dir == 'L':
index -= number
if index < 0:
index = 0
else:
index += number
if index > len(names) - 1:
index = len(names) - 1
print(names[index])
index = 0
for instruction in instructions:
dir = instruction[0]
number = int(instruction[1:])
if dir == 'L':
index -= number
else:
index += number
print(names[index%(len(names))])
indexes = list(range(len(names)))
for instruction in instructions:
dir = instruction[0]
number = (int(instruction[1:]) if dir == 'R' else -int(instruction[1:])) % len(names)
indexes[0], indexes[number] = indexes[number], indexes[0]
print(names[indexes[0]])
if __name__ == "__main__":
main()
I probably should read all 3 files though. I'll hone it out later.
it's as easy as the code you're maintaining is.
it has fewer guardrails than most languages, that would prevent you from writing shit code
syntax is bad for list operations, also there are situations where you need to count the number of parentheses you closed, which wouldn't happen of you were able to use fluent interfaces
I mean mainly list manipulation, with explicit filter, map, reduce mathods.
I've also never had a problem with not knowing if I closed enough parentheses in Ruby.
it has more sane syntax than python and is great for e. g. webscrapping
This is only a Draft for now though
Yeah, but you can also write it like I proposed which is less boilerplaty and gives the same advantages
I know it's not the point of this comment, but I'll check harlequin out