[Exercise Approaches]: Audit/Cleanup of Track Approaches 2026 (part 2)

This is a tracking issue for existing approaches on the Python track.
(Part 1 of the audit/cleanup was issue #4055.)

In general, we are auditing/reviewing the following:

Spelling, grammar, and typos
Python syntax
Clarity of writing and explanation
Readability and maintainability
White space
Other Exercism markdown specifications as needed
Possible missing/additional approaches (noted as TODOs of future work)

See the lists for each category below. Exercises in "Merged Audits" have been reviewed, changed, and merged. Exercises in "Unaudited" have approaches that have not been audited yet.

Exercises in "Approaches In Progress" do not have finished/published approaches yet, while those in "Missing Approaches" do not have any known work on their approaches yet.

If you want to work on an exercise that is missing an approach, please check in with the maintainers to avoid conflicting with current track priorities or others who may be working on things.

Merged Audits

Acronym: [Acronym] Approach docs cleanup #4258
Atbash Cipher: [RNA Transcription & Atbash Cipher]: Approaches Cleanup #4191
Collatz Conjecture: [Collatz Conjecture Dig Deeper]: Corrections & Edit #4250
Darts: [Darts Approach Docs] Various fixes and improvements #4187
Leap: [Leap Approaches]: Typos & Fixes per issue 4197 #4252
Reverse String: [Reverse String] Clean up approach docs #4226
RNA Transcription: [rna-transcription approach]: a few improvements #4052 and [RNA Transcription & Atbash Cipher]: Approaches Cleanup #4191
Robot Name: robot-name approach: fix typos, minor rephasing/improvements #4051
Roman Numerals: [Roman Numerals] Approach docs fixes #4289 and [Roman Numerals] Approach docs improvements #4300
Rotational Cipher: [Rotational Cipher Approaches] Fix ALPHABET capitalization and approaches link #4184
Sublist: [Sublist] Fix existing approaches & add new ones #4190
Wordy: [Wordy] Clean up Approaches #4198

Unaudited

All Your Base
Bob: PR forthcoming
Circular Buffer
DnD Character
Flower Field (formerly Minesweeper)
Grains
Hamming
Isogram
Luhn
Matching Brackets
Nth Prime
Palindrome Products
Pangram
Pig Latin
Raindrops: PR [Raindrops] Approach Docs and Peformance Article Cleanup #4308
Scrabble Score
Sieve
Yacht

Approaches In Progress

Allergies
Anagram
Armstrong Numbers
Book Store
ETL: [ETL] Approaches First Draft #3378
Gigasecond: Create intoduction for dig deeper in gigasecond exercise #3772
ISBN Verifier
Markdown
Matrix
Perfect Numbers
Protein Translation
Robot Simulator
Saddle Points
Say
Space Age
Sum Of Multiples: [Sum of Multiples] Add Approaches #3375
Transpose
Triangle
Word Count: [Word Count] Approaches First Draft #3371

Missing Approaches

Affine Cipher
Alphametics
Bank Account
Binary Search
Binary Search Tree
Bottle Song
Bowling
Change
Clock
Complex Numbers
Connect
Crypto Square
Diamond
Difference Of Squares
Diffie Hellman
Dominoes
Dot DSL
Flatten Array
Food Chain
Forth
Go Counting
Grade School
Grep
Hangman (to be replaced by Save the Cow)
High Scores
House
Kindergarten Garden
Knapsack
Largest Series Product
Ledger
Linked List
List Ops
Meetup
OCR Numbers
PaaS I/O
Phone Number
Poker
POV
Prime Factors
Proverb
Pythagorean Triplet
Queen Attack
Rail Fence Cipher
Rational Numbers
React
Rectangles
Resistor Color
Resistor Color Duo
Resistor Color Trio
Rest API
Run Length Encoding
Satellite
Scale Generator
Secret Handshake
Series
SGF Parsing
Simple Cipher
Simple Linked List
Spiral Matrix
Tournament
Tree Building
Twelve Days
Two Bucket
Two Fer
Variable Length Quantity
Word Search
Zebra Puzzle
Zipper

That markdown table is ... terrifying. We might need to try something else. I will think on it. 😄

Just went and updated the entries for the approaches that I audited... Yeah, that table's terrifying.

Edit: Just went and normalized the formatting on the table as well. ADHD beats terror every time 😆.

@BethanyG

Addressed in PR #4258:

Acronym Dig Deeper audit

Overall:
- The usage of "scrub the input" is a bit odd; I would have expected "clean the input" to be used. Here, "scrub" means "remove", but the cleaning for some approaches is not just removing characters.
- There is inconsistency between single quotes and double quotes, when it should be consistent within the same exercise.
- There are hyphens that should be em-dashes.
- Some comments are right up against the #, which can hurt readability.
introduction.md:
- Line 15 has a stray backtick at the end.
- Lines 25, 26 and 31: The markdown links are not rendered because the link definitions are missing from the bottom of the file.
- Line 54: "Generator" should not be capitalized here.
- The generator expression approach has an unnecessary extra set of parentheses. (Lines 64 to 70.)
- Line 134 and 141: Are all of the approaches really idiomatic? The re.sub() approach is called a "fun experiment" in its approach doc, it is many times slower than the others, and it can be hard to understand.
- Line 149 is confusing with its two instances of "least performant". It should be rewritten to clarify that re.sub is the slowest by far.
loop/content.md, list-comprehension/content.md, generator-expression/content.md, functools-reduce/content.md, and map-function/content.md:
- The first list item is incorrect:
  - Nothing is done with spaces or single quotes in the input at all.
  - Saying "scrub" or "remove" is kind of misleading, as the characters are replaced with spaces, not empty strings.
- The paragraph after the list is confusing, as the returned string (versus returned list) is what the chained method is called on. It's especially misleading because <str>.replace() has actual string arguments, and it might make it sound like somehow those turn into lists.
- The last line of the exercism/note: Is "As of this writing" a valid way to say "when this was written"? The phrase reads kind of strangely.
map-function/content.md:
- Line 31: There is a stray parenthesis: 'GNU'[0], 'IMAGE'[0], 'MANIPULATION'[0]), 'PROGRAM'[0]
- Line 37: "acronym rather" should be "acronym, rather".
functools-reduce/content.md:
- Line 40: The empty string should be surrounded by backticks for readability and clarity.
- Line 40: "ahead/before" is rather confusing. Shouldn't it just be "before"?
regex-join/content.md and regex-sub/content.md:
- The first line of prose rather confusing.
regex-join/content.md:
- Line 56: "omit matching on" is confusing, it should probably be "stop matching on".
- Lines 56 and 59: The space surrounded by backticks does not render properly.
- Line 82: "generator expression + join + upper" should be changed to be more readable.
regex-sub/content.md:
- Line 11 and 16: return and re have an extra space between them.
- Line 31 says "the phrase" where everywhere else it is referred to as to_abbreviate.
- Line 50 is missing numbers in the "this will match ..." From the docs:
  
  For Unicode (str) patterns:
  
  Matches Unicode word characters; this includes all Unicode alphanumeric characters (as defined by str.isalnum()), as well as the underscore (_).
  
  Matches [a-zA-Z0-9_] if the ASCII flag is used.
  
  For 8-bit (bytes) patterns:
  
  Matches characters considered alphanumeric in the ASCII character set; this is equivalent to [a-zA-Z0-9_]. If the LOCALE flag is used, matches characters considered alphanumeric in the current locale and the underscore.
- Line 59: The space surrounded by backticks does not render properly.
- Line 59: Both - should be _.
- Line 59: The empty string should be surrounded by backticks for readability and clarity.
The performance article:
- Line 5 says "seven idiomatic approaches" but then the list lays out eight different approaches.
- Line 17 says a ninth will be added, but its description of it is basically the same as number 7 in the list.
- Line 22: numpy is called numbpy.
- Line 25 is strange, adding a word like "however" at the beginning or the end would fix that.
- Line 27: "10x or more times" should be "10 (or more) times".
- Line 29: "easiest read" should be "easiest to read".
- The re.findall() approach always has "first letters" by it, but it is not clear that this means a different re.findall() approach than what is in the approach doc.

@BethanyG, I have a question: My solution seems to use an approach that doesn't have an approach doc. Is it worth adding a new approach doc for this? I'd probably need some guidance on how to update and use the benchmark application.

@BethanyG

@BethanyG, I have a question: My solution seems to use an approach that doesn't have an approach doc. Is it worth adding a new approach doc for this? I'd probably need some guidance on how to update and use the benchmark application.

Sure! why not?. I say go for it, and I am happy to help you use/update the benchmarking! 😄

Addressed in PR #4226:

Reverse String Dig Deeper audit (part 1 of 2)

Overall:
- There appears to be mixed quote types; I think these are supposed to be consistent per exercise.
introduction.md:
- Line 17: "Range()" should be "range()".
- Line 26: "non ASCII" should be "non-ASCII".
- Line 39 is missing a period at the end.
- Line 55: "But" should probably be "However,"
- Line 67: #For should probably be replaced with # <-- For.
- Many terms are missing backticks around them. (Lines 17-20, 55, 60, 72, 80, etc.)
sequence-slicing/content.md:
- Line 24 seems to use ** for bold, but the website renders it as italics instead?
- It saying "the space before" is very confusing, as there are actual spaces that were put in the syntax definition (probably for readability). It should either refer to the placeholders in a different way or the spaces in the syntax thing should be removed.
- Line 26: Both "-->"s should be replaced with "to"s.
- The paragraph on lines 24 to 30 is very long, and it jumps around to multiple different sub-topics, so it should be split up.
- Line 33: The hyphen should be an em-dash.
- Line 37: O(n + n) is not valid Big-O notation, it should be changed to O(n) or just removed entirely.
iteration-and-concatenation/content.md:
- Lines 16, 17, and 19: 'output' should probably be output.
- Line 17 vs 18: One has O(m + n) and the other has O(n + m), it should be consistent.
- Line 22: There should be an "it" between "that" and "is".
- Line 22: "O(n**2)" should be surrounded with backticks.
- Line 65: There should be a space in between the = and ''.
- Line 77: "tine" should be "time".
- Lines 35 and 84: Since the + operator is actually used in this approach, it would be clearer if usages of "+" in the prose were replaced with "and" or "plus".
backward-iteration-with-range/content.md:
- Line 7: #For should probably be replaced with # <-- For.
- Lines 13 and 34: "-->" should be replaced with "to".
- Line 18 is a bit confusing, adding parentheses around the "mentioned in the iteration and concatenation approach" would help.
- Lines 34 and 35 seem to be wrong. This variant is still appending, not prepending.
- Line 51: There should be an "it" in between "but" and "becomes".
- Line 52: "is not strictly repetition and length constrained" is very confusing, I'm not quite sure what it's supposed to mean.

@BethanyG

Addressed in PR #4226:

Reverse String Dig Deeper audit (part 2 of 2)

introduction.md:
- Line 80: The period should probably be removed, as it is a header, not a sentence.
- Line 88: There should probably be a space in between the , and codepoint.
- Lines 99, 113, 116, 127, etc.: Terms missing backticks.
- Line 146: "and or" should be "and/or".
- Line 146 is missing a period at the end.
- Line 159: "intput" should be "input".
list-and-join/content.md:
- Line 6: The hyphen should probably be replaced with "to" or "or".
- Line 14: There should probably be a space in between the , and codepoint.
- Line 19: "O(1)" should be surrounded with backticks.
- Line 24: "Range" should be "range()".
- Line 24: "list.append()" should be surrounded with backticks.
- Line 42: "range()" should be surrounded with backticks.
- Line 42: "over 1/2" should probably be "Over Half".
- Lines 48, 52, and 74: There is no space in between the # and the comment.
- Line 58: The usage of "a median" is confusing here, maybe use "the midpoint" (or similar) instead?
- Line 61 is a bit confusing, maybe "each force iteration over" should be "both iterate over".
- Line 82: More variables missing backticks.
- Line 104: There is an extra space in between "an" and "UnicodeDecodeError". Also, should this "an" be an "a"? It reads more naturally with an "a", but I'm not sure which is correct.
built-in-list-reverse/content.md:
- Title: The period should probably be removed, as it is a title/header, not a sentence.
- Line 13: "loop + append" should probably be "loop and list.append()" for clarity.
- Line 19: There should be a comma in between "None" and "as".
- Line 47 has three spaces of indentation instead of four.
built-in-reversed/content.md:
- Title: The period should probably be removed, as it is a title/header, not a sentence.
- The variant being in introduction.md (and not having a header of its own in built-in-reversed/content.md) is confusing, especially because it does not use str.join(), which is in the header for the approach in introduction.md.
- The first code block has unnecessary parentheses.
additional-approaches/content.md:
- Line 26: There should be a space in between the + and 1.
- Some comments are missing a space after the #.
- Line 31 would be clearer if the "or" was a "/" instead.
- Many terms are missing backticks.
- Line 43: "the code below" should be "the next approach" for clarity.
- What is stniopedoc supposed to mean? It doesn't seem like a good variable name.
- Line 65: "into a the" should be "into the".
- Line 70: "almost" should be "slightly", as "almost slower" implies that it is slightly faster.
- Line 88: "slice + concatenation" should be "slice plus concatenation" for clarity.
- Line 90: Wouldn't it be O(n**2) space complexity (where n is the length of the string)?
- Line 95: lambbda should be lambda.
- Line 95: Join() should be join().
- Lines 99 and 110: The parentheses around -x-1 are unnecessary.
- Line 106: "to O(n)" should be removed, it was already O(n) (even though it was less efficient).
- Line 127: There should be a comma in between "issues" and "since".
- Line 129: There should be an "it" in between "but" and "does".
The performance article:
- The snippet appears to be broken, it seems like both Github and the Exercism website fail to render the Markdown table properly.
- Line 5: "six" should be "seven".
- Line 15: "and a seventh approach using map()" should be "(for the 'other interesting approaches' category, the map() approach will be used)"

@BethanyG, Can I open a PR to fix these?

@Yrahcaz7

@Yrahcaz7 - apologies. 😅 I was out today running errands and food shopping, so didn't get to this until now. Since I wrote this set of approaches, I sorta feel obligated to correct them. But if you really want to PR them, have at it. 😄 💙

@Yrahcaz7

@Yrahcaz7 - with any luck... the Leap PR will fix the missing approach. I replaced the UUID with a new one in config.json.

with any luck... the Leap PR will fix the missing approach.

It seems like it's fixed now!

Regarding the "Acronym" approach, instead of using "scrub the input," it might be clearer to say "clean the input" to align with standard terminology in data processing. Additionally, can we clarify what the expected format for the input string is in this approach to enhance clarity for users?

@Fi6uDvGWucFv

@Fi6uDvGWucFv - the changes to the Acronym exercise have already been PR-d.

@BethanyG

@BethanyG, actually, I think we never PRed those changes. I still see the old version on the website -- We probably both confused the new approach with the cleanup and never actually PRed it 😅.

Should I draft up a PR? I'll probably have the time to do so tomorrow.

@BethanyG

@BethanyG, actually, I think we never PRed those changes. I still see the old version on the website -- We probably both confused the new approach with the cleanup and never actually PRed it 😅.
Should I draft up a PR? I'll probably have the time to do so tomorrow.

Sure! Let's go ahead and do that. 😄 Thanks!

Bob Dig Deeper audit

introduction.md:
- Line 6 is confusing because it isn't clear that it is referring to a different approach. Making it a markdown list of the approaches would be one way of fixing this.
- Line 10 should probably have a colon at the end.
- Line 22 (line 25 in if-statements/content.md and if-statements-nested): "If an if statement can return" is confusing, as it makes it seem like the if statement only sometimes returns. It should probably be "If an if statement returns" instead.
- The first two approaches don't have any explanation in introduction.md. Should this be added?
- Line 71: The header "Other approach: answer list" should probably be "Approach: Answer list" because it is already under the "other approaches" header.
- The last approach is missing a codeblock; was this intentional?
- Line 83 is formatted as a list because of the "- " at the beginning.
- Line 86: This link has the wrong highlight parameter. The parameter should either be removed or changed to endswith: https://docs.python.org/3/library/stdtypes.html?highlight=endswith#str.endswith
- Overall: "if statements nested" is a bit awkward, "nested if statements" would be clearer.
if-statements/content.md and if-statements-nested/content.md:
- Line 38 (line 43 in answer-list/content.md): " Z" should be "Z". Also, "when uppercase" should probably be "when uppercased" for grammar.
if-statements-nested/content.md:
- Line 44: This is false because it is just an if statement, not an if/else.
- Line 44: "returns if it is a shouted question or just a shout" is confusing, as Bob's response is what is returned, not the type of the input sentence. Replacing "returns" with "tests" would make it clearer.
answer-list/content.md:
- Line 26: This link should be converted to a reflink. The linked python-tuples header also seems to have been renamed to creating-tuples-in-python.
- Line 27 is rather confusing. "the performance between a tuple and a list here is equivalent" should probably be changed to "a tuple does not perform differently than a list here" or similar.
- Lines 27-28: There is no transition between these two lines, which is a little jarring. Line 28 should probably start with "However," or similar.
- Lines 34-36: There is no transition between these two lines. Line 36 should probably start with "Next," or similar.
- Line 52 should have a colon at the end.
- The snippet has # code snipped instead of the usual ...; which one of these is preferred?
The performance article:
- Line 3: "approach" should be "article".
- Line 26: This link redirects to: https://exercism.org/tracks/python/exercises/bob/dig_deeper

For the Affine Cipher exercise, consider including a function that explicitly demonstrates how the encoding and decoding are related mathematically, which would enhance clarity and educational value for new learners.

@gjbbcjj

@gjbbcjj The changes to the Acronym exercise were already PR'd.

@kyliekamesha26

@kyliekamesha26 - I'm sorry, but this issue is closed to contributions from anyone but Yrahcaz7, who was originally assigned to it.

@BethanyG

Roman Numerals Dig Deeper audit

Overall:
- "Loop over Romans" does not make sense, it should be changed to "Loop over Roman Numerals".
introduction.md:
- Line 20: "concept" should probably be "process" or similar.
- Lines 20-24: This paragraph should be made more generic; right now it seems to focus too much on the "With if conditions" approach.
- Lines 24 and 95 should probably be separated from the last list item.
- Line 91 is missing punctuation at the end.
- Line 92 is a bit awkward.
- Line 122: This is an odd place for the link, perhaps it should be moved to line 133.
- Lines 135-147 should probably be reworded to use a link to the relevant lines instead of a codeblock.
- Lines 175-180: This codeblock is formatted in a way that is very hard to read.
- Line 179 uses double quotes.
- The introduction is missing a section that links to the itertools.starmap() approach.
if-else/content.md, if-else/snippet.txt, and introduction.md:
- This approach uses type hints, which are usually not included. It also has unnecessary assertions.
if-else/content.md:
- Lines 17, 20, 22, 24, 26, and 35: There is an extra space after the +=.
- Lines 28 and 37: There is an extra space after the second >.
- The first codeblock has unnecessary > 0 and > 4 comparisons.
- Line 49: This paragraph does not actually explain how the approach works.
- Line 61 needs more explanation.
- Line 64 is missing a serial comma in "hundreds, tens and units".
- Line 69 does not make much sense where it is currently, so it should be moved to after the codeblock.
table-lookup/content.md, table-lookup/snippet.txt, and introduction.md:
- This approach uses single letter variable names (that are not roman numerals). It also has an unnecessary assertion.
table-lookup/content.md:
- Perhaps the comments could be merged into the rest of the explanation.
- Line 17 (75 in introduction.md): "we need" should be "get" and "our" should be "the".
- Line 34: This header should be "Variation 1" or similar.
loop-over-romans/snippet.txt:
- This snippet uses single letter variable names (that are not roman numerals).
- Line 2 (line 30 in loop-over-romans/content.md) has an unnecessary assertion.
- Line 3 uses double quotes (quoting should be consistent per exercise, if I remember correctly).
loop-over-romans/content.md:
- This approach uses type hints.
- The exact workings of most of the variants are not explained.
- There are no headers separating the variants.
- Line 19: "Arabic (decimal)" should be "Arabic (decimal) numbers".
- Lines 25-27, 70, and 89 use double quotes.
- Lines 33-36 and 55-57 use single letter variable names (that are not roman numerals).
- Line 40: "the" is unnecessary here.
- Lines 44 and 45 have inconsistent spacing.
- Lines 48 and 74 have docstrings.
- Line 66: "1, 5, 10" should be "1, 5, and 10".
- Line 69 is missing a serial comma in "10's, 5's and 1's".
- Line 97: "is doing" should probably be "does".
- Line 113 does not apply to the last variant. This should be clarified.
- Line 113: There is a missing space after "while".
- Line 117 is a bit awkward, changing "so need" to "so they need" should improve it.
- Lines 121-124 should probably either be:
  - removed entirely, or
  - moved to a single variant (and preserve the type hints on only that variant) and also have links to resources about type hinting.
- If it is kept, these should be fixed:
  - Line 122: There should be an "is" after the "and".
  - Line 124: "IDE's" should be "IDEs". Also, the subject of whether VSCode is an IDE should probably be avoided.
recurse-match/content.md, recurse-match/snippet.txt, and introduction.md:
- This approach uses type hints.
- The comma in [ROMAN_NUM[idx],] is unnecessary, as it is a single-element list, not a tuple.
- The last case (case [num, idx, digits]:) can be changed to a default case (case _:).
recurse-match/content.md:
- Lines 5, 38, 39, and 50 (line 155 in introduction.md) use double quotes.
- Line 22: The first part of this sentence could be improved to: "A major limitation is the lack of tail-call optimization".
- Line 26 has an extra space before the ending period.
- Line 41 has an extra space after convert.
- Lines 44-46: It is not clear what the ltr variable represents from its name. It should probably be renamed to roman_val or similar.
- Line 57: This link is invalid as it uses loop-over-roman instead of loop-over-romans.
itertools-starmap/content.md and itertools-starmap/snippet.txt:
- This approach uses type hints, single letter variable names, and double quotes.
itertools-starmap/content.md:
- Line 50 is a bit awkward; perhaps it could be changed to: "Roman numerals for 5,000 and 10,000 are not defined, so spaces are used here instead."
- Line 63: There should be a comma after "For example".
- Line 71: "compute" should probably be "compute()".
config.json:
- Line 23: "Numerals" should be lowercased here.
- Line 53: Maybe "the recently-introduced" should be removed, as Python pattern matching has been around for almost 5 years now.

@BethanyG, can I open a PR to fix these? (Or perhaps 2 separate ones due to the amount?)

@Yrahcaz7

Hi @Yrahcaz7 👋🏽

@BethanyG, can I open a PR to fix these? (Or perhaps 2 separate ones due to the amount?)

Apologies for the delay in replying. Go for it. Maybe two groups: The straight-up typos, whitespace, and punctuation-related stuff. And a second one for rephrases and other more substantial edits? Many thanks for working on this!

I can take a look at auditing Circular Buffer next, specifically ensuring we cover the trade-offs between using a

@BethanyG

Raindrops Dig Deeper audit

Overall:
- Only some of the approaches that use str.join() have a link to the docs on join().
introduction.md:
- Line 8: "many" is duplicated in "many many variations".
- Line 16 is missing punctuation at the end.
- Line 27 is missing a serial comma in "(3, 5 or 7)".
- Line 28 is missing a space between 'Plong' and (7).
- Line 38: "code" should be "the code" here.
- Line 88: "f-string" should be "f-strings" here.
- Line 91: A comma is unnecessary here.
- Line 134: "tuple with join" should be "sequence with join".
- Line 153: "factor -> sound mappings" would be clearer as "factor to sound mappings". It might also be helpful to provide the generator expression link again.
- Line 154: "'results'" should be "results" here.
- Line 205: This link should be to approach-itertools-compress, not itertools-compress.
- Line 211 has unnecessary parentheses around number % factor.
- Line 233: To clarify that this does not include the approach in the "Other Approaches" section, "All approaches" should be changed to "All 7 approaches".
- Lines 235-239: This paragraph is rather large and would benefit from splitting.
- Line 245: The comment has no space after the # and has an extra space before "Unless".
- Line 262: n is usually used for big-O notation instead of m when there is only one factor.
if-statements/content.md:
- Line 15: The "modulo" here should probably have the modulo link from introduction.md.
- Line 16: "modulo == 0" and "sounds" should probably be surrounded with backticks.
- Line 17: "Sounds" should be "sounds" here.
- Line 20: The comma should either be removed or a matching comma after the "of course" should be added.
- Line 26: A variation header would be apt here.
- Line 28: The docs on conditional expressions could be linked here.
truthy-and-falsey-with-fstring/content.md:
- Line 6: The comment is incorrect; modulo == 1 should be modulo > 0.
- Line 12 (line 74 in introduction.md): The #OR# is indented here.
- Line 23: The docs on f-strings should be linked here.
- Line 23 (line 85 in introduction.md): The last comma is unnecessary.
- Line 30 has mismatched quotes: 'Pling" should be 'Pling'.
- Line 30: "not False" should be "is not False" here.
- Line 31: The empty string here '' looks like a double quote when rendered on the website. Surrounding it in backticks could fix this.
loop-and-fstring/content.md:
- Line 7 (line 97 in introduction.md, line 3 in loop-and-fstring/snippet.txt): Double quotes are used here, when single quotes are used in most other places.
- Line 19 (line 108 in introduction.md): "sounds string" should be "the sounds string".
- Line 20 (line 109 in introduction.md): "Sounds" should be "sounds".
- Line 28: A variation header would be apt here.
sequence-with-join/content.md:
- Lines 5 and 27 (line 119 in introduction.md) use double quotes.
- Lines 9 and 30 (line 123 in introduction.md, line 6 in sequence-with-join/snippet.txt) have unnecessary parentheses around the if clause.
- Line 16 (131 in introduction.md): "Sounds" should be "sounds".
- Line 19: There should be a comma after "like most approaches described here".
- Line 21: A variation header would be apt here.
- Line 22 is phrased awkwardly; perhaps it could be changed to "The above solution might not be very readable for those not used to reading generator expressions inside calls to other functions, so if that is the case, it can be re-written as:".
dict-and-join/content.md:
- Line 37: A variation header would be apt here.
- Line 45 has unnecessary parentheses around the if clause.
- Line 48, 49, and 52: All of these links now redirect here (with the appropriate heading).
itertools-compress/content.md:
- Line 8 (line 4 in itertools-compress/snippet.txt) should either use parentheses or there should be explanation of implicit tuple creation.
- Lines 9 and 34 (lines 166 and 173 in introduction.md, line 5 in itertools-compress/snippet.txt) have unnecessary parentheses around number % factor.
- Line 14 should have the generator expression link.
- Line 21 is a bit awkward, maybe it could be changed to: "The code is also harder to maintain should additional factors/sounds be needed."
- Line 39 is a bit awkward, maybe it could be changed to: "In this variation, factors are keys and the sounds are values in a dictionary."
functools-reduce/content.md:
- Lines 9 and 31 (line 166 in introduction.md, line 5 in functools-reduce/snippet.txt) have unnecessary parentheses around number % factor.
- Line 9: The comment has no space after the #.
- Line 23: "as the factor list expands" should be "if the factor list is expanded".
- Line 32 has unnecessary parentheses around item[0] * item[1].
The performance article:
- Line 10: This list item has a period at the end while the others do not.
- Line 48 (line 286 in introduction.md): PEP 622 was superseded by PEP 634, which points to the up-to-date documentation here.
The performance article's snippet.md:
- All columns past "14" can't be seen on the website (but they are still rendered in the HTML, so removing them may slightly decrease load time). Additionally, the website does not render any borders for the snippet's table, so it is hard to tell when one column ends and begins.
- The data appears to be outdated (it seems like the article's data was changed in PR dict-and-join simplify for raindrops approaches #3620, but not in the snippet).

@BethanyG, can I open a PR for these? (There's quite a few audit items, but only a couple of them need prose rewording.)

@BethanyG

@BethanyG, can I open a PR for these? (There's quite a few audit items, but only a couple of them need prose rewording.)

Go for it! 😄

Navigation Menu

Repository navigation

[Exercise Approaches]: Audit/Cleanup of Track Approaches 2026 (part 2) #4197

4 remaining items

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

[Exercise Approaches]: Audit/Cleanup of Track Approaches 2026 (part 2) #4197

Description

Activity

github-actions commented on May 21, 2026

BethanyG commented on May 21, 2026

Yrahcaz7 commented on May 21, 2026

Yrahcaz7 commented on May 23, 2026

BethanyG commented on May 23, 2026

Yrahcaz7 commented on May 29, 2026

Yrahcaz7 commented on May 29, 2026

BethanyG commented on May 30, 2026

4 remaining items

BethanyG commented on Jun 22, 2026

Yrahcaz7 commented on Jun 23, 2026

Fi6uDvGWucFv commented on Jun 25, 2026

BethanyG commented on Jun 25, 2026

Yrahcaz7 commented on Jun 25, 2026

BethanyG commented on Jun 26, 2026

Yrahcaz7 commented on Jul 13, 2026

Bbk1AtJJF8 commented on Aug 3, 2026

BethanyG commented on Aug 17, 2026

BethanyG commented on Sep 10, 2026

Yrahcaz7 commented on Sep 14, 2026

BethanyG commented on Sep 15, 2026

jonahwhite115 commented on Sep 27, 2026

Yrahcaz7 commented on Oct 14, 2026

BethanyG commented on Oct 14, 2026

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Labels

Type

Projects

Milestone

Relationships

Development

Issue actions