This comment is hidden because it contains spoiler information about the solution
Why python decides to tiebreak on their own is beyond me.
Well it did somewhat, but only after submitting.
On further thought I don't think there is really that much difference between this kata and the kata for the next bigger grid size and I actually did not expect this solution to be fast enough. And for the multisize kata this solution does not work (because apparently I've overlooked bugs for non-quadratic grids and because it is still too slow)
Does that occur to you that you're spoiling the other kata, doing so...?
This is clever!
its less readable to me . isnt good python code meant to be easy to read
why have the and in there? if a == b, then b better dxmn well == a lmao
Because this solution is at least 5 years old and it wasn't revalidated.
xrange() was removed in Python 3, how this code passed the test?
Welp, I am dumb.
Seemingly the solutions are not re-validated; probably due to the high number of them
I guess this doesn't work anymore, because the functions are now called minimum and maximum.
Why is this even voted as best practice? This solution breaks fundamental DRY rule. Repeating code is never best practice.
@G_kuldeep exactly. Clever, right? I guess that's why 218+ people said it is clever. You are technically defining the function count but importing the function as count. This question is 8kyu if you know this function already. So basically, it just passes all the tests, because when count(any_example), it just returns the function Counter() from collections. Since the Counter function returns, when you import Counter as count, when you call on count, it passes all of the tests because the tests involve count.
Hope that helps in more detail? :)