I feel this solution is better with O(n) time complexity. The with sum, min, and max function would mean O(3n).

very concise solution. however it takes 2 * len(arr).

My code works for both, so I see no harm in accounting for more cases.

the instructions explicitly state that it will only be 1 digit.

Fixed tests should include 0, 2, 29 to verify that the proper century is being solved for, because 1900 is not a leap year, but 2000 is.

This was my initial thought, but I tried to account for ages more than just 1 digit.

how do you learn to write such elegant code?))

Alr, could've probably guessed that but being more sure is always nice. Thx :D

One-time math calculations are normally O(1), although it depends on how they are implemented.

For simple statements like this, it's quite pythonic to put it on one line. Even for more complicated statements with ifs and for loops and generators, it is still often pythonic to put it on one line.

YMMV in other languages.

I don't know about industrial programming, but here it is often done like this

Q: How conventional is it to have this on one line over multiple? Apologies if this is a silly question - still learning. :)

I see. Thank you.

After ten years, I guess nobody is taking your suggestion. Closing.