a man's gotta do what a man's gotta do...

Edit: However, you have got a point. Check out my fork, by inheriting from float the code becomes significantly shorter (while still being equally correct, and tongue-in-cheek).

Best, MFreidank

Hi! Thanks for your comment and for helping me improve my kata.
I just changed the example tests and your issue should now be resolved.
If anything else (still?) looks wrong, please comment again!

Best,
MFreidank

Pep8 says:
"Comparisons to singletons like None should always be done with is or is not, never the equality operators."

https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0008/#programming-recommendations

How is this "best practices"? It is a clever hack indeed, but
the people who upvoted this for best practices are asinine to me.

"Explicit is better than implicit."

Line 2 of PEP8:

https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0020/

if (true) {
return true;
} else {
return false;
}
??

Could

for (string; *string; ++string)

be changed to

for (; *string; ++string)

?
Or would this break in a way I'm missing?

Because special friends may change, more quickly than one thinks!

Valid point indeed!

In what world is this best practice? Very clever indeed, but if anyone puts this in production code, I'm killing myself.

Glad you profited! Coming from a background of functional programming myself, I share your sentiments.
That's why I decided to make a few katas to become more acquainted with all the class magic.

So be on the lookout for more similar stuff coming soon ;)

Your solution does not make sanity checks on assignments to variables "length, height, width, weight".

The test suite did not check for this, so it passed, but I just updated the test suite to reflect this requirement.

Please resubmit a solution that adresses this!

Best,
MFreidank

Thanks! :)

Good catch! I missed that case completely in my test suite :(
Test suite is updated and your solution has been invalidated.

Please resubmit a solution covering this case.

Thanks for helping me make the kata better.

@suic: your solution still passes, so no worries on your part ;)