This Kata is specifically designed to be solved in the C language, where the use of null-terminated strings (C-strings) is fundamental to the challenge. While I understand the suggestion to make the title more explicit by referencing C-strings, I believe the current title is sufficient. Since this Kata is limited to C, and strings in C inherently follow the null-terminated convention, the title should not cause confusion within its intended context.

I still recommend adding something about null-terminated strings (or C-strings) to the title to avoid confusion. This kata isn't really about the general concept of strings in informatics; it's focused on a specific type of it.

I have made a Kata based on the Kumite that I started. If you want to go check it out, here's the link: https://www.codewars.com/kata/66ca80460f2a3f128a865cc5/c

No one is working together on some ultimate programming project in this thread. This is Codewars. Just have fun and do stupid shit. Nobody said this code was an improvement; it's just another submission.

How is making the code unreadable an improvement? Most code is meant to be read by others, and good C formatting is a virtue.

Hi, I replied on email 😉

added to PHP

removed const qualifier

???

What you did in those two last lines of code is crazy. I am still trying to wrap my head around it.

Prototype should not use const type for parameter n in C translation, that makes no sense at all.

can you provide a test case that this solution would fail ? ;-)

Random tests are needed (at least in C). This solution shouldn't have been accepted: https://www.codewars.com/kata/reviews/633ecc4a0b4d8d0001547ed6/groups/633ecc4b0b4d8d0001547edb

you have a memory leak.

Brain fart on my end. I initially wrote the tester and used const int for the index n to ensure it wouldn't be modified within the scope of the tester. I carried over that same approach to the function definition, but you're right — since n is passed by value and not by reference, making it const doesn't serve any purpose in the function prototype.

I've corrected the prototype based on your suggestion!