There is an issue with the program when the user correctly guesses the number. The program should end when the break statement executes in the while loop found in main(), but instead it times out.
import random
def main():
level = get_level()
number = generate_random_number(level)
while True:
guess = get_guess()
if check_guess(number, guess) == False:
continue
else:
break
def get_level():
while True:
level = input("Level: ")
try:
int(level)
except ValueError:
continue
if int(level) <= 0:
continue
else:
return int(level)
def generate_random_number(level):
number = random.randint(1, level)
return number
def get_guess():
while True:
guess = input("Guess: ")
try:
int(guess)
except ValueError:
continue
if int(guess) <= 0:
continue
else:
return int(guess)
def check_guess(number, guess):
if guess > number:
print("Too large!")
return False
if guess < number:
print("Too small!")
return False
if guess == number:
print("Just right!")
return True
main()
What duh eh does
standard idiom
mean?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_idiom
So this term is vague and abstract. Really not a specific term or grouping of related things.
The actual terminology
That standard idiom is called, process guard or simply guard. Learn about this term when doing anything involving multiprocessing.
https://labex.io/tutorials/python-how-to-pass-arguments-in-python-multiprocessing-430780
So it’s totally not for what its being described as. Or that’s an oversimplification with a loss of vital details of it’s actual purpose.
It could be worse
When don’t know the name for something, Call it stuff!. Ya know, when really suack at naming things, be unrepentant! Stuff is as bad of a term i could come up with. Means didn’t know how to describe it to accurately relate what it is or does, without being vulgar; out of fear the typos author left an Easter egg which is best left lie.
Used this term once, for a SQLAlchemy non-request based router implementation, the Session (term already taken) i call SessionStuff. Doesn’t that just scream competence and authoritative implementation?
Regretted immediately and still do. Cuz session seems to have three different contexts / meanings.
Oh shit! Used the term, stuff. That’s code prefer to not even read. That’s a thing of nightmares that haunts our collective waking moments.
You sound angry. Take a breath and grow up.
That’s what code reviews feel like. Don’t take it personally. Sugar coating advice is a skill when working in groups.
Evidently i’m not, so got that code review advice the less than tender way.
Everyone one else was not critical and let these avoidable coding mistakes slide. That doesn’t fill me with confidence. Should strive to spend more time testing code bases to eventually be able to see and avoid these kinda coding mistakes.
If anyone feels the need to set me on the road to becoming a lovable teddy bear full of positivity and group comradery, jawboning alone is too kind, feel free to put me in the hot chair by reviewing packages have written and published.
Have ordered the packages according to the value you’d gain by learning them.
logging-strict
wreck
pytest-logging-strict
sphinx-external-toc-strict
drain-swamp and drain-swamp-action