dict-and-join simplify for raindrops approaches

[Nerwosolek]

Probably this was done on purpose but as a way to discuss this I wanted to propose a little simplification to the approach.
I think this is more sound and readable to just use the item from the dict.
Let me know what you think.
Thanks in advance.

[BethanyG]

Hi there! 👋🏽

Thanks for submitting this PR. 😄

Probably this was done on purpose but as a way to discuss this I wanted to propose a little simplification to the approach.
I think this is more sound and readable to just use the item from the dict.

I did do it on purpose, but my 'copypasta' got the better of me! It is more sound when using dict.items() to have the dictionary view unpack both the keys and the values (and then use them!). And that was my intent here -- to show an approach that was different looking, but the same as what is in the introduction.md summary:

def convert(number):
    #This is clear and easily added to.  Unless the factors get
    # really long, this won't take up too much memory.
    sounds = {3: 'Pling',
              5: 'Plang', 
              7: 'Plong'}

    results = (sounds[divisor] for 
               divisor in sounds.keys()
               if number % divisor == 0)

    return ''.join(results) or str(number)

Buuut. I copied the code above and missed modifying sounds[divisor]! 😱

Now that I am looking at all this again, I think perhaps the best thing to do is use the example above in the approach document, and use the code with dict.items() in the introduction.md. I'll update this PR with those changes, and you can let me know if it reads better to you that way.

[Nerwosolek]

Yes, looks even better. The distinguish between using items() and keys() adds even more knowledge to the already rich article!

[BethanyG]

Thanks for giving this one last read-through! 🌈

[BethanyG]

Yes, looks even better. The distinguish between using items() and keys() adds even more knowledge to the already rich article!

Going to push the big, green button then!