If you create a numpy array, wrap it in a list, and multiply it by a number x (in order to have an array containing x copies of the array), they're all the same object -.-
Wait wait wait...did y'all mutate the bingo boards when numbers were called? I just took a slice of the currently called numbers each time and checked if those formed a row/column on any of the boards
@Razetime Yeah, that's what I did once I realized what was happening lol
@hyper-neutrino And that's why I didn't even think about it being an issue lol
I usually just do that with strings or ints
@RedwolfPrograms What did your code look like for that?
Because that's clever and I like it
I used numpy to track the boards and did some fun numpy stuff
with open('input', 'r') as file:
lines = file.read().split('\n\n')
balls = lines.pop(0).split(',')
boards = [np.array([l.split() for l in line.split('\n')]) for line in lines]
marks = [np.zeros(shape=(5, 5)) for b in boards]
total = 0
for ball in balls:
for idx, board in enumerate(boards):
loc = np.argwhere(board == ball)
if loc.size > 0:
loc = loc[0]
marks[idx][loc[0]][loc[1]] = 1
if any(np.all(marks[idx], axis=0)) or any(np.all(marks[idx], axis=1)):
@SaintWacko Something along the line of b.some(r => r.every(x => nums.slice(0, i).includes(x))) || b.some((_, k) => b.every(r => nums.slice(0, i).includes(r[k])))
my solution is super scuffed. if i had used any foresight i could've solved p2 by deleting one if statement but alas i didn't and looped via filling rectangles for p1 and had to rewrite that whole part
(although funnily enough i'm on enough two days of finals brain that i actually wrote my input parsing right, went to copy the input, then on seeing commas immediately thought "oh fuck it's using commas as a decimal separator" and put a .replace(',','') in)
i just iter(input,'') which is why it gets fucky when the input contains blank lines because then i just change it to iter(input,'e') and manually add the e to the end
if you do want to have two-arg range go either way i'd advocate for three-arg rejecting backwards steps at least so if you specifically need to catch order issues you can throw in an explicit 1 step
i have a command line utility that automatically runs my code on both my test and real input files and outputs the former in blue and the latter in white
