Only problem is that it doesn't handle f(0). Fix that, with less characters than mine & you get some karma

It's true that f(0) evaluates to True, but it's also true that in Python True == 1, so for all practical uses the definition is just as good as any other.

Nonetheless, here's a definition that beats your 31-char solution under your constraints (just by one char, but hey, one char shorter still counts, haha!):

30 Characters

f=lambda n:n and n*f(n-1) or 1

Points awarded, as promised :)

aha! So you decided to join codegolf SE.

you can lose 1 char by removing space here "n<2 or"

Nice, think I'll rewrite my factorial code using lambda.

nice. Awarded some points

For real?! How about 19 chars

find_last=str.rfind

@EnTerr but then you don't have a function - no way to call it again.

@elssar: huh?! care to explain why you think so?

$ find_last=str.rfind

$ find_last('111','1')

2

$ find_last('hello','hell')

0

88 Characters

split_string=lambda s,p:filter(bool,"".join([c,p[0]*2][c in p]for c in s).split(p[0]*2))

Converted from comment to answer and back again, but which is the preferred way to keep answers together? The commenting won't scale for longer code blocks, new answers are not kept together.

Maybe 1 forum question for 1 actual problem with the tags codegolf, shorter and spoilers? And maybe it will start the integration of all the "shorter way to do x" questions.

One downside that I see is that it would mix the Pythonic answers with the mangled code-golf anwers. Maybe we can have a convention to start all short solutions from a Pythonic one.

And I thought my solution was short... :)

Well done. What I don't understand is, why p[0]*2 and not just p[0]? The grader seems to be perfectly happy with

84 Characters

split_string=lambda s,p:filter(bool,"".join([c,p[0]][c in p]for c in s).split(p[0]))

As to your organizational questions, maybe @elssar in his capacity as creator of this thread should make a decision.
I like the idea of the codegolf tag, but I suspect introducing a unified tag system into the forums will be the same sort of tilting at windmills as trying to make people post their code with all the indentations included.

I think you are right about the p[0]*2 vs p[0]. It's a relic from earlier iterations that's no longer required.

1. You could shave quiet a few characters by using 1 letter variable names.
2. @yihong that really should be an answer so that it can be upvoted
3. I don't have dominion over all golf posts on Udacity forums. If you want to create a new post for every problem(or the ones good for golfing) then go ahead :)

And it makes sense to have a unified tag for codegolf. Even if only a few people use it, it would be nice to have.