Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On 23/11/12 01:56, Peter O'Doherty wrote:
>
>> This code appears to work although it's very cumbersome. Is
>>there a better way to do it?
>
>
> Of course it is cumbersome, that's because of the artificial
> constraints set on the problem. I quote from your description
Indeed.
> Finally, here is how I would solve the problem for real:
>
>
> try:
> print max(filter(lambda n: n%2 != 0, (x, y, z)))
> except ValueError:
> print ('no largest odd number')
>
>
> You are not expected to understand this! Especially not the
> mysterious lambda.
For completeness here is the version you *are* supposed to understand, right
now or "real soon":
numbers = x, y, z
odds = [n for n in numbers if n % 2]
if odds:
print("largest odd number:", max(odds))
else:
print("no odd numbers")
_______________________________________________
Tutor maillist - Tutor@python.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor
