Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #46896

Re: Beginner question

Show all headers | View raw

In article <IKKdneVcX7wyMjDMnZ2dnUVZ_sSdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
 Larry Hudson <orgnut@yahoo.com> wrote:

> def partdeux():
>      print('A man lunges at you with a knife!')
>      option = input('Do you DUCK or PARRY?  ').lower()
>      success = random.randint(0, 1)
>      if success:
>          if option == 'duck':
>              print('He tumbles over you')
>              return
>          if option == 'parry':
>              print('You trip him up')
>              return
>      print('He stabs you')

I'm going to suggest another possible way to organize this.  I'm not 
claiming it's necessarily better, but as this is a learning exercise, 
it's worth exploring.  Get rid of all the conditional logic and make 
this purely table-driven:

responses = {(0, 'duck'): "He tumbles over you",
             (0, 'parry'): "You trip him up",
             (1, 'duck'): "He stabs you",
             (1, 'parry'): "He stabs you",
            }

and then....

def partdeux():
     print('A man lunges at you with a knife!')
     option = input('Do you DUCK or PARRY?  ').lower()
     success = random.randint(0, 1)
     print responses[(success, option)]

Consider what happens when the game evolves to the point where you have 
four options (DUCK, PARRY, RETREAT, FEINT), multiple levels of success, 
and modifiers for which hand you and/or your opponent are holding your 
weapons in?  Trying to cover all that with nested logic will quickly 
drive you insane.

Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Beginner question eschneider92@comcast.net - 2013-06-03 20:39 -0700
  RE: Beginner question Carlos Nepomuceno <carlosnepomuceno@outlook.com> - 2013-06-04 09:46 +0300
    Re: Beginner question John Ladasky <john_ladasky@sbcglobal.net> - 2013-06-04 00:53 -0700
      RE: Beginner question Carlos Nepomuceno <carlosnepomuceno@outlook.com> - 2013-06-04 11:17 +0300
  Re: Beginner question Anssi Saari <as@sci.fi> - 2013-06-04 10:45 +0300
    Re: Beginner question John Ladasky <john_ladasky@sbcglobal.net> - 2013-06-04 00:57 -0700
      Re: Beginner question Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-06-04 18:24 +1000
      Re: Beginner question Peter Otten <__peter__@web.de> - 2013-06-04 11:23 +0200
      RE: Beginner question Carlos Nepomuceno <carlosnepomuceno@outlook.com> - 2013-06-04 14:23 +0300
        Re: Beginner question Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-06-04 12:35 +0000
          RE: Beginner question Carlos Nepomuceno <carlosnepomuceno@outlook.com> - 2013-06-04 15:51 +0300
            Re: Beginner question Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-06-07 02:21 +0000
      RE: Beginner question Fábio Santos <fabiosantosart@gmail.com> - 2013-06-04 12:34 +0100
      RE: Beginner question Carlos Nepomuceno <carlosnepomuceno@outlook.com> - 2013-06-04 14:53 +0300
        Re: Beginner question Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-06-04 12:25 +0000
          RE: Beginner question Carlos Nepomuceno <carlosnepomuceno@outlook.com> - 2013-06-04 15:37 +0300
          RE: Beginner question Fábio Santos <fabiosantosart@gmail.com> - 2013-06-04 13:47 +0100
      RE: Beginner question Fábio Santos <fabiosantosart@gmail.com> - 2013-06-04 13:15 +0100
      Re: Beginner question Mitya Sirenef <msirenef@lightbird.net> - 2013-06-04 13:16 -0400
  Re: Beginner question Larry Hudson <orgnut@yahoo.com> - 2013-06-04 02:13 -0700
    Re: Beginner question Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2013-06-04 09:16 -0400
  Re: Beginner question Joshua Landau <joshua.landau.ws@gmail.com> - 2013-06-04 20:43 +0100
  Re: Beginner question eschneider92@comcast.net - 2013-06-05 20:42 -0700

csiph-web