I'm not sure what to put in about.md. I think somtehing about sorted would be good, but I'm not sure how to relate it with secrets. Maybe the secret has somtehing do do iwth the key?

I rigged up something for the sort.

Btw, how do I tell if the CI is failing or not? 🤔

Btw, how do I tell if the CI is failing or not? 🤔

It usually shows here on the main page...buuut the workflow needs to be approved by a maintainer, so if you then do another push, it gets hidden until the workflow gets approved/run again.

ooof I think I need to take a break and look at this with fresh eyes in the morning (after 6am Pacific). Apologies, @Steffan153 -- I am a bit blurry at the moment, so please bear with me. I'll also have some ideas for the about.md in the morning. Promise. 😄

I'm just 1 hour ahead of you and am a super heavy sleeper (I'm about to buy one of those bed shakers), so that should be plenty good :)

Hey, just wondering what happened with this?

Hi @Steffan153 -- I got pulled into troubleshooting, and then this slipped through the cracks. But I am reviewing today. Apologies.

@Steffan153 -- I have really been struggling with this exercise, and how to adapt it better to Python.
Much of it feels like an exercise on higher order functions as opposed to lambda itself. Especially the line from the instructions:

In this exercise, you've been tasked with writing the software for an encryption device that works by performing transformations on data. You need a way to flexibly create complicated functions by combining simpler functions together.

The most "natural" way to do this in Python would be to simply write a function that takes or returns a function -- not by writing/returning a lambda.

I am also struggling with this, from the introduction:

Python has a [lambda][lambdas] expression, which is a shorter way to create functions than using def.

...because it is perfectly fine in Python to define a one-line named function. Mind you, it is considered pretty bad form, but this will compile and run without issue: def one_liner(first, second): first=first**2; second=second-3; return first + second

So I am trying to think through how to modify tasks 1 & 2 to better show where or why you would need a lambda instead of a simple (and named) one-line function.

I think task 3 can be modified to use max() and or min() with a key function.

Task 5 ... might be able to be modified to pull functions from a dict based on a key function. The other thought is to set up a scenario where one or more of these functions are callbacks that need parameters ... which would be where you might use a lambda instead.

The long and short : This exercise needs work - but it is around clarifying what topics are, and are not covered. I would suggest in-line edits, but I am not sure that is useful, since they would be less edits, and more entire re-writes. So I am inclined to "optimistically merge" this, and then discuss how we re-work it.

The other option is to turn this exercise into the start of a concept exercise on higher order functions, and pick a different scenario/topic for lambda that is more tailored to the restrictions Python places on them. I came across this from David Beazley, which could maybe be inspiration for a different exercise on lambda.

Thoughts on how you would like to proceed? Let me know. Thanks!

What if we have this learn both the Lambdas concept and the Higher-Order Functions? Sounds like they would go well together.

because it is perfectly fine in Python to define a one-line named function.

The main advantage is that they're nameless in that case. (Well, and for.... well... yes.... code golf.) I will update that to be clearer.

I'll work on this later.

@Steffan153 -- are you still up for working on this? Let me know...thanks!

Still working on this. Thanks

@Steffan153 -- Just checking in again. Are you still working on this?

Yeah I'll get to it sometime...

I'm going to close for now to clear the queue. Ping @J08K or myself when you are ready, and we will happily re-open.

@Steffan153 can we work on this together, if you're fine with that? This seems interesting.

@safwansamsudeen -- This exercise is closed to contribution at this time.