I don't think this is intended: https://www.codewars.com/kata/reviews/5e8de403344c4600018054b1/groups/678d894556ad14fe87d3a5ea

I don't get it. What do you want us to sum up? Please show an example with the result.

approved at 6 kyu: ranking votes

Haskell translation

done. thanks.

approved by someone.

f(n) =  \begin{cases} \frac{n}{2} \quad &\text{if }& n \equiv 0 \pmod{2}\\ 3n + 1 \quad &\text{if }& n \equiv 1 \pmod{2} \end{cases} 

use katex

f(n) = \frac{n}{2} \quad \text{if } n \equiv 0 \pmod{2}\\
f(n) = 3n + 1 \quad \text{if } n \equiv 1 \pmod{2}

f(n) = \frac{n}{2} \quad \text{if } n \equiv 0 \pmod{2}\\ f(n) = 3n + 1 \quad \text{if } n \equiv 1 \pmod{2}

python new test frameworks

approved, one thing remained unclear to me from description, an "implicit conversion" is a "from -> to" from bindings (I would say this is an "explicit conversion"). Also "from -> to" and "to -> from" are two different kinds of conversions.

A very nice and classic kata on pattern recognition in fact.

You never define how the bag should be returned nor give an example.

Also the condition "If you move away from them" is disturbing because this condition should never be true since the moment you move away from the enemy, you are not on an adjacent cell anymore.
Let me give you an example:

   E
   >
actions: F

In this example, you are on an adjacent square to an enemy. Your action is to take a step forward. The moment you attempt to move, you take damage, after which (if you are alive) you move one square forward. That is, you need to assess the situation around you before making a move, first registering the damage you take, then making a move. I hope this is useful and helps someone in the future.

Yes, I agree that the description could have been better. But regarding attacking and taking damage afterwards, it's in the description (block 'Attack mechanics and enemies'):

Just remember that you attack and use objects before the enemies besides you attack. Here is an example where two enemies would attack you

EEE                      EEE
 >E        =>             >
EEE        action: A     EEE
hp: 3                    hp: 1

It's quite another matter of tests. For example, I just checked that this behavior is not implemented in my solution and it still passes all tests. I don't remember the reasons why I didn't implement it, as I solved this problem quite a long time ago. I only register the damage from "Demon Lord". Accordingly, there is no test for the case given in the description, or there are tests, but in moments when the defense of my character in such moments does not allow to receive damage.

I agree with your last statement. This was very confusing to me too. That, and the fact "moving away" isn't even specified in the description. You need to guess what that means. Luckely, a user mentioned what is means in some other comment. But the description is just lacking quality in that respect.