Add approaches for the Eliud’s Eggs exercise

[Yrahcaz7]

From this forum thread.

As an easy exercise that is linked to in learning mode, I think it is important that the Eliud's Eggs exercise gets a Dig Deeper section with approaches. I offer to create a PR with approach docs for the following approaches:

• Looping with modifying the parameter, with a normal arithmetic variant and a binary operation variant.

• Looping without modifying the parameter, with a multiplying every loop variant and a [range() with exponentiation variant].

• Converting to a binary string, with a manual looping variant and a sum() variant (and another sum() variant). The approach doc will also mention that an f-string could be used instead of bin().

• The "cheating" way (with a warning that this isn't the intended solution!), with an int.bit_count() variant and a str.count() variant.

Approaches/variants that may or may not be worth adding:

• An even more extreme variant of the "cheating" approach, using function aliasing.

• An approach that converts to a binary string and uses regular expressions to count the ones. Regexes would definitely over-complicate things, but it might be an opportunity to show how regexes are not suitable for everything.

• A variant of the binary modification variant that I can't really understand. If I added this, I would need some help in understanding it.

New ideas (things that weren't on the forum post):

• A divmod() variant and a list variant of the "looping with modifying the parameter" approach.

• A len() variant and a map() variant of the "converting to a binary string" approach.

• A range() with sum() variant for the "looping without modifying the parameter" approach.

• A recursive approach with a normal variant and a tail call variant.

• Perhaps an approach with the task broken into multiple functions? All of them seem unnecessarily long and complicated, though, so maybe it's not worth it.

[github-actions]

Hello. Thanks for opening an issue on Exercism 🙂

At Exercism we use our Community Forum, not GitHub issues, as the primary place for discussion. That allows maintainers and contributors from across Exercism's ecosystem to discuss your problems/ideas/suggestions without them having to subscribe to hundreds of repositories.

This issue will be automatically closed. Please use this link to copy your GitHub Issue into a new topic on the forum, where we look forward to chatting with you!

If you're interested in learning more about this auto-responder, please read this blog post.

[BethanyG]

This looks excellent! Thank you for logging it here. Another thing on the to-do list, but well worth it. 😄

[Yrahcaz7]

@BethanyG, I've added some more things to the "New ideas" section since the initial post. How do you feel about these, and the things in the "Approaches/variants that may or may not be worth adding" section?

I'm not sure whether all possible approaches/variants should be included, or if something like a regex approach or a multi-function approach wouldn't be worth it.