Hey Megan,
thanks for keeping up with this series, these sorting algorithms are really interesting.
I'm not sure about the -2, as when I tested with [10, 1, 64, 89, 12, 0] for example, there is one sort missing I think, as it resulted with [0, 1, 10, 12, 89, 64].
Also I guess you could reduce your code a little bit, using for instead of while, and not using smallest_value, as it is related to smallest_index value, which is what you really want here.
I've really started to look forward to your comments because I feel like they are so helpful and are making me a better coder. So thank you, I really appreciate you! And I also appreciate you following with the series too.
I completely agree with your comment on the -2 and have fixed that in my code, thanks for catching that!
Also, I definitely went back and forth on my naming for the smallest_value, so I'm glad you felt the same way haha.
Hey Megan,
thanks for keeping up with this series, these sorting algorithms are really interesting.
I'm not sure about the -2, as when I tested with [10, 1, 64, 89, 12, 0] for example, there is one sort missing I think, as it resulted with [0, 1, 10, 12, 89, 64].
Also I guess you could reduce your code a little bit, using for instead of while, and not using smallest_value, as it is related to smallest_index value, which is what you really want here.
Hi Matthieu,
I've really started to look forward to your comments because I feel like they are so helpful and are making me a better coder. So thank you, I really appreciate you! And I also appreciate you following with the series too.
I completely agree with your comment on the -2 and have fixed that in my code, thanks for catching that!
Also, I definitely went back and forth on my naming for the smallest_value, so I'm glad you felt the same way haha.
I'll catch you on the next post 😊
Hey Megan,
I'm glad my comments could help ! I'm looking forward to your next post :)