← coreweave Interview Insights
I spent the first few minutes just staring at the problem trying to figure out if they wanted a parser or a data structure or both.
Start by clarifying requirements and constraints, then propose a design using an abstract syntax tree (AST) with nodes for comparisons and logical operators, and a recursive evaluator. Discuss parsing (e.g., recursive descent or shunting-yard) and evaluation strategies, including short-circuiting and error handling.
Pro tip: Mention that you would separate parsing from evaluation to allow caching of parsed expressions and reuse across multiple evaluations, which is crucial for performance in high-throughput systems.
Ask about supported operators, data types, expected expression complexity, and performance needs. Confirm whether expressions are provided as strings and evaluated against a dictionary of variables.
Define node types: comparison nodes (e.g., >, <, ==) with left/right operands, logical nodes (and, or, not) with child nodes, and leaf nodes for variables and literals. This tree structure naturally handles parentheses and operator precedence.
Use a recursive descent parser or shunting-yard algorithm to convert the infix expression string into an AST, respecting operator precedence and parentheses. Tokenize the input first.
Write a recursive evaluator that traverses the AST, looks up variable values in the provided dictionary, and computes boolean results. Implement short-circuit evaluation for logical operators to avoid unnecessary computations.
Compare design choices: AST vs. direct interpretation, recursive descent vs. shunting-yard, and handling of errors. Mention possible optimizations like constant folding, caching, or compiling to bytecode.
AI-generated suggestions, not part of the candidate's original notes. May be inaccurate — verify before relying on them.