Conversation
| return false | ||
| end | ||
| end | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good job! That's a very elegant solution!
mmcknett
left a comment
mmcknett
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Checklist
- Clean, working code
- Unfortunately, neither solution passes the edge cases defined in the spec file. Also, leftover test code is detracting from the code's cleanliness.
- Efficient code - give feedback as you would give to a peer on your team
- Specifically, solution 1 appears to be optimal, and returns as soon as it knows when the arrays are not equal.
A detailed explanation of time and space complexity (explains what n stands for, explains why it would be a specific complexity, etc.)[Not part of this assignment]- All test cases for the assignment should be passing.
|
|
||
| switch = 0 | ||
| while switch == 0 && i < array_one.length | ||
| array_one[i] != array_two[i] ? switch = 1 : i += 1 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
[nit] This is absolutely a correct implementation of this loop, but it's a little surprising. Normally in imperative languages like Ruby, I expect the ternary operator (the ? : syntax) to be used when assigning variables, but you aren't assigning the result of this operator to anything. As someone who likes to operate on the principle of least surprise, I'd find it more obvious if I read:
if (array_one[i] != array_two[i])
return false
end
i += 1That also eliminates your need for the switch variable.
| # # solution 2 --> It loops through the whole array and then compares the number | ||
| # of assertions to the length. | ||
|
|
||
| # assertion = 0 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just as a note, it's better not to leave commented-out code in committed files. However, in this case, it looks like you wanted us to see the second solution you came up with. Since it's here, I'll say: solution 1 is the better solution because it has the ability to stop looping as soon as it finds an element. The opportunity for algorithms to take shortcuts like that are things you should be looking for, so I'm glad you chose to leave solution 1 and not solution 2 in the code. :)
| first_array_size = rand(1..2) | ||
| second_array_size = rand(1..2) | ||
|
|
||
| first_array = [] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's great to see you testing and trying out your code! Ideally, you shouldn't leave that code in this file, though. Don't feel afraid of adding test cases to the spec files when it makes sense as you work, and also don't feel afraid of adding a .rb file next to this one where this sort of code can live (and where you could run it separately).
3 participants
:)