Refactored slightly, used range function on the initial passed in value, instead of adding 1, but I came across your solution which both checked for negative numbers and how to elegantly print the row in one line. I also through in a check for even values at the beginning.
if width % 2 == 0:
print("width needs to be odd")
for num in range(width):
num = num - (width//2)
if num < 0:
num = -num
print(' ' * num + '*' * (width - num *2) + ' ' * num)
I would like to add:
1) Making str.center do some of the dirty work
2) Using ranges (and chain) to iterate up and down instead of keeping a state on num
from itertools import chain
if n <=0 or n % 2 == 0:
raise ValueError('n must be odd and positive')
for i in chain(range(1, n + 1, 2), reversed(range(1, n, 2))):
print(('*' * i).center(n))
It might be more readable to have two loops instead of using chain but I like chaining more because I don't need to repeat the print
Is this fast too?
I wouldn't worry about it too much, since print requires IO, it is by far the bottleneck.
For the rest of the utilities that I used: range, chain, and str.center: they are all implemented in C if you are using the standard CPython (should be fast).
To avoid the IO, let's compare the two functions as generators of strings (I replaced the print with yield (('*' * i).center(n)) for both my implementation and Nicks:
yield (('*' * i).center(n))
In : %timeit tuple(my_diamond(11))
3.59 µs ± 37.6 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100000 loops each)
In : %timeit tuple(nicks_diamond(11))
4.66 µs ± 69.9 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100000 loops each)
Seems like mine is slower than Nicks.
However, on my machine, a single print statement takes about 4.17us, which is almost as long as diamond(11) takes without any prints!
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
We strive for transparency and don't collect excess data.