Conversation
anselrognlie
left a comment
anselrognlie
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Nice job! 🎉 Your tests are all passing and your code is well-organized. The main thing I'd focus on is looking more into how some of the library functions you used are implemented, and think about where we might take different approaches to avoid some of their drawbacks. Sometimes, library functions, while helpful, may conceal hidden costs that we may be able to work around ourselves, as we'll learn more about shortly. Implementing the logic ourselves can help us become aware of that. Overall, well done!
|
|
||
| def draw_letters(): | ||
| pass | ||
| letter_list = ['A', 'A', 'A', 'A', 'A', 'A', 'A', 'A', 'B', 'B', 'C', 'C', 'D', 'D', 'D', 'D', 'E', 'E', 'E', 'E', 'E', 'E', 'E', 'E', 'E', 'F', 'F', 'G', 'G', 'G', 'H', 'H', 'I', 'I', 'I', 'I', 'I', 'I', 'I', 'J', 'K', 'L', 'L', 'L', 'M', 'M', 'N', 'N', 'N', 'N', 'N', 'N', 'O', 'O', 'O', 'O', 'O', 'O', 'O', 'P', 'P', 'Q', 'R', 'R', 'R', 'R', 'R', 'S', 'S', 'S', 'S', 'T', 'T', 'T', 'T', 'T', 'T', 'U', 'U', 'U', 'U', 'V', 'V', 'W', 'X', 'Y', 'Y', 'Z'] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We do need a copy of the letters each time the function runs since the list is being modified (removing a tiles each call), but instead of hard coding the list, which is error prone due to the repetition (for instance, there are 9 Es in the list, but we're supposed to have 12 of them!), could we make use of the more readable dictionary data to generate the list?
|
|
||
|
|
||
| while len(players_hand) < 10: | ||
| random_letter = random.choice(letter_list) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
When using a library function like this that we haven't discussed, I encourage you to either include a comment that explains your understanding of how it works, or consider implementing the logic yourself rather than using the library function for additional practice!
| word = word.upper() | ||
|
|
||
| for letter in word: | ||
| if word.count(letter) > letter_bank.count(letter): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If we were going to implement count ourselves, we would need to iterate through the list. So each time this loops over a letter from word, we are iterating over the word and the bank. Could we do all our counts a different way before we start looping? What tradeoff would we be making to store the results for later use?
| random_letter = random.choice(letter_list) | ||
| players_hand.append(random_letter) | ||
|
|
||
| letter_list.remove(random_letter) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As we start to discuss big O (coming up) we'll see that removing from a list is realtively inefficient. This does guarantee that future picks won't use a letter we've already "consumed", but in a loop, we'd like to avoid remove if possible. To remove a value from a list, we need to iterate to find the value, then continue iterating to the end of the list shifting the remaining values forward (we can't have holes in a list). So each time we add a letter to the hand, we also need to iterate over the letter list. For the length of the letter list in our scenario, this isn't a big deal, but in a more general case, we'd like to avoid this if possible.
Is there some other way we could track which letters we've used without needing to remove them, but also ensuring that we don't pick the same tile again?
|
|
||
| def score_word(word): | ||
| pass | ||
| score_dict = { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Like the LETTER_POOL, this could live externally to the function (globally) so that it doesn't need to be regenerated with every call to the function.
|
|
||
| result = 0 | ||
| for letter in word.upper(): | ||
| result += score_dict[letter] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
✅ Great approach to look up the score for each letter and accumulate it into the result.
| if len(word) >= 7: | ||
| result += 8 |
| for word in word_list: | ||
| score = score_word(word) | ||
|
|
||
| if score > high_score: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
✅ Nice job breaking down the conditons into these checks. They read very cleanly.
2 participants
No description provided.