Python
Takes ~5.3s on my machine to get both outputs. Not sure how to optimize it any further other than running the math in threads? Took me longer than it should have to realize a lot of unnecessary math could be cut if the running total becomes greater than the target while doing the math. Also very happy to see that none of the inputs caused the recursive function to hit Python’s max stack depth.
Code
import argparse
import os
class Calibrations:
def __init__(self, target, operators) -> None:
self.operators = operators
self.target = target
self.target_found = False
def do_math(self, numbers, operation) -> int:
if operation == "+":
return numbers[0] + numbers[1]
elif operation == "*":
return numbers[0] * numbers[1]
elif operation == "||":
return int(str(numbers[0]) + str(numbers[1]))
def all_options(self, numbers, last) -> int:
if len(numbers) < 1:
return last
for j in self.operators:
# If we found our target already, abort
# If the last value is greater than the target, abort
if self.target_found or last > self.target:
return
total = self.all_options(
numbers[1:], self.do_math((last, numbers[0]), j)
)
if total == self.target:
self.target_found = True
def process_line(self, line) -> int:
numbers = [int(x) for x in line.split(":")[1].strip().split()]
self.all_options(numbers[1:], numbers[0])
if self.target_found:
return self.target
return 0
def main() -> None:
path = os.path.dirname(os.path.abspath(__file__))
parser = argparse.ArgumentParser(description="Bridge Repair")
parser.add_argument("filename", help="Path to the input file")
args = parser.parse_args()
sum_of_valid = [0, 0]
with open(f"{path}/{args.filename}", "r") as f:
for line in f:
line = line.strip()
target = int(line.split(":")[0])
for idx, ops in enumerate([["+", "*"], ["+", "*", "||"]]):
c = Calibrations(target, ops)
found = c.process_line(line)
sum_of_valid[idx] += found
if found:
break
for i in range(0, 2):
part = i + 1
print(
"The sum of valid calibrations for Part "
+ f"{part} is {sum(sum_of_valid[:part])}"
)
if __name__ == "__main__":
main()
Thanks! yup, I figured there would be a way. You’re right, much faster, on my machine with your code, this is the speed:
$ time python3 day7.py 4555081946288 227921760109726 real 0m0.171s
I’ll have to take a look to understand how that works to be better.