Pop count - Added practice exercise #317
Conversation
|
Hello. Thanks for opening a PR on Exercism 🙂 We ask that all changes to Exercism are discussed on our Community Forum before being opened on GitHub. To enforce this, we automatically close all PRs that are submitted. That doesn't mean your PR is rejected but that we want the initial discussion about it to happen on our forum where a wide range of key contributors across the Exercism ecosystem can weigh in. You can use this link to copy this into a new topic on the forum. If we decide the PR is appropriate, we'll reopen it and continue with it, so please don't delete your local branch. If you're interested in learning more about this auto-responder, please read this blog post. Note: If this PR has been pre-approved, please link back to this PR on the forum thread and a maintainer or staff member will reopen it. |
|
@Nerwosolek Thanks! Will review this when I get a gap. @colinleach you'll probably beat me to it so feel free to review and provide feedback or merge if you're happy. |
Your basic strategy is great, and has been preserved here. However, Jon is keen to encourage the use of native pipes, now they are available (since v4.1.0). More lines, but perhaps better readability than nested functions - especially as the pipeline gets longer. At Jon's prompting, I wrote this up in an [approaches doc](https://exercism.org/tracks/r/exercises/reverse-string/approaches/native-pipes) about 2 weeks ago. That article includes various useful links.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks great, thank you for submitting.
I suggested a small change to example.R, using the same functions with native pipes rather than nested. This is a newer style that is now encouraged.
I'm puzzled by all the changes in the top-level config.sys. These look generally sensible and the sort of thing that configlet might do automatically, but not something I've seen before. I've held off merging until @jonmcalder has had chance to look at this and give an opinion.
Alternative approach: @BethanyG, have you seen anything like this on the Python track?
|
I agree that the changes to config are just formatting (whitespace and ordering of fields), so presumably that's just a recent-ish improvement to configlet. Happy to merge - thanks again @Nerwosolek and to @colinleach for reviewing! |
I've added pop-count exercise as @colinleach and @jonmcalder suggested.
Somehow during autogeneration config.json was changed in other parts also, I guess only for formatting issues.