likewise...
I've been playing with coordinates while we just needed to compare counts of directions...
Well it was fun anyway, thanks!

I was afraid that there would be phrases like "TREE FIDDY" or "THREE FIFTY", and wrote unnecessary command s.toLowerCase().

I feel dump

Smort

this is my first solution. but i feel it is O(5n) and with simple for .. you can do it just O(n)

I feel more dumper than I actually is... after seeing this solution

I compared against my solution and you got the 'e' and 'w' the wrong way round.

I have almost the same solution, but thought I had to have "or False" after that. Didn't know I could just write it like this. :)

It's not optimal, you are right! But actually, it only needs to iterate through the list 4 times. The len() method in python does not need to iterate through the array to find the length, but python caches the length in an attribute!

Very clever, smart thinking. Didnt even realise they would all have to be equal to get back to same spot facepalm.

Less efficient than it could have been, but given the max length of the walk, probably not worth worrying about here.
In general x times the work when not needed is not what you should aspire to.

this iterates through the list a total of 5 times so while it looks pythonic, it's not optimal. But a very readable solution nonetheless :).

this is very clever.. this makes it sounds like the exercise is easy bwhen i built something so complicated to achieve the same result!!

smart