Beta
It's Magic
Loading description...
Metaprogramming
This comment has been reported as {{ abuseKindText }}.
Show
This comment has been hidden. You can view it now .
This comment can not be viewed.
- |
- Reply
- Edit
- View Solution
- Expand 1 Reply Expand {{ comments?.length }} replies
- Collapse
- Spoiler
- Remove
- Remove comment & replies
- Report
{{ fetchSolutionsError }}
-
-
Your rendered github-flavored markdown will appear here.
-
Label this discussion...
-
No Label
Keep the comment unlabeled if none of the below applies.
-
Issue
Use the issue label when reporting problems with the kata.
Be sure to explain the problem clearly and include the steps to reproduce. -
Suggestion
Use the suggestion label if you have feedback on how this kata can be improved.
-
Question
Use the question label if you have questions and/or need help solving the kata.
Don't forget to mention the language you're using, and mark as having spoiler if you include your solution.
-
No Label
- Cancel
Commenting is not allowed on this discussion
You cannot view this solution
There is no solution to show
Please sign in or sign up to leave a comment.
Instructions are unclear and vague:
"magic_ - a special property as it should be able to handle numbers given with it" should write "magic_ - special instance and its property is being able to handle numbers given with it"and since it has and underline its not a public but private instance. "whereami" is also instance and "whoami" is also instance.
This comment has been hidden.
Heya,
I see,... you found other magic methods š However
inspectshould be now banned.No random tests.
Yeah,
I didn't include random tests because I think that it actually takes longer to "cheat" than to just implement that class.
Nah. I can just submit, look at the error/stack trace, implement missing stuff, repeat. Easy points. Random tests make this impossible.
Hmm kinda,
I added some random numbers.
I'm not quite OK with the wording here; it implies the instances should have
magicproperties, while in reality users will most likely make this a class attribute/property. It's a subtle difference (mind you, you could indeed apply this as a property on the instance, but that's alot more complicated)Uh yeah,
you are right. That was my intention in the first place but I forgot the most obvious again š¤¦ Gonna change that description later, thx m8
ć ¤
The tests declare classes via
class Name(object), which is incredibly anachronistic. This ain't 1999, we're not writing Python 2, nor are we trying to be compatible with Python 2, savvy? :)I do that for aesthetic reasons... However, you can for sure explain me why this is a big issue and how it makes the kata unsolvable
Aesthetic? You aren't serious, right? Well, that's subjective I suppose.
You're right, this isn't issue worthy, it should arguably have been a suggestion. However, it's not as "arbitrary" as you seem to make it out to be. Programmers who've been using Python since the Python 2 days will see this and instantly double check to see whether the code they're looking at is actually Python2. In Python 3,
class Fooandclass Foo(object)are the same thing, in Python 2 they are not. Because the semantics differ across versions, it's idiomatic to use the current declaration style for the version you're writing in (and yes, there's still tons of Python 2 code out there, still being maintained). At best, you're confusing a few old-timers. At worst, you're setting a bad example for newbies.I do that for aesthetics and I am serious.
CodeWars only supports py3.8 / py3.10 and the predefined solution is written in that particular style. So in this frame / context it is as "arbitrary" as it is. And I am 100% sure that nobody gets confused.