[eluser]Aken[/eluser]
Yeah, just spamming for the hell of it :roll:
Let me clarify a couple of things. First, I can't automagically know the skill levels of every person on these forums. So if I see something that I think should be pointed out in the event that the person doesn't know a proper method, I'm going to do so. Hence why I mentioned the variable assignments on return. Frankly, I don't see how it's easier to read or make adjustments later, but if have future plans for it, maybe it's handy.
Also, when people share code, especially on Github, I see that as an invitation for comments and critique. That's why I mentioned other changes that I didn't think were important enough. I didn't feel like going through and nitpicking every little thing I would do differently, even though I've been having fun benchmarking random changes for the last couple hours. I think that would be even more douchey than what I said. Perhaps I could've been more specific with the meaning of my statement, which should translate into something like "I'd do things a bit differently, but nice job so far."
Lastly, I know that you did not create the Luhn check - I saw the copyright for it. That was my own little shot at whoever wrote that code. I said you should rewrite it so it and your own function might perform better (if your function is fast but that one is slow, your function will be slow).
I'm not talking down to you or anything, so chill. You share code, you get feedback. If you actually want to see what I'd do differently, I will still fork it.
