"Peter J. Holzer" <hjp-pyt...@hjp.at> writes: > On 2021-09-02 11:28:21 -0300, Hope Rouselle wrote: >> dn <pythonl...@danceswithmice.info> writes: >> > On 29/08/2021 08.46, Hope Rouselle wrote: >> >> Here's my solution: >> >> >> >> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- >> >> def how_many_times(): >> >> x, y = 0, 1 >> >> c = 0 >> >> while x != y: >> >> c = c + 1 >> >> x, y = roll() >> >> return c, (x, y) >> > >> >> >> >> Why am I unhappy? I'm wish I could confine x, y to the while loop. >> >> The introduction of ``x, y = 0, 1'' must feel like a trick to a >> >> novice. How would you write this? > [...] >> But perhaps we may agree that while rolling dice until a certain >> success, we want to roll them while something happens or doesn't happen. >> One of the two. So while-True is a bit of a jump. Therefore, in this >> case, the easier and more natural option is to say while-x-not-equal-y. >> >> But this approach seems to force me into initializing x, y with >> different values. > > You can get around this by using NaN: > > def how_many_times(): > c, x, y = 0, math.nan, math.nan > while x != y: > c = c + 1 > x, y = roll() > return c, x, y > > Not sure if this is an improvement. Now you have to explain to your > students why math.nan != math.nan. > > When I need a guaranteed unique value I often just use object(): > > def how_many_times(): > c, x, y = 0, object(), object() > while x != y: > c = c + 1 > x, y = roll() > return c, x, y > > Of course now you are back to two different values, but they look the > same. Which may be better or worse for your students. Plus x and y are > now bound to objects of different types during their lifetime, which may > be a bit dicey.
Lol. I would argue that it's quite appropriate to the event (``of rolling dice'' --- clarity-obsession). :D Pretty nice alternatives. Thank you so much. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
