Done!

Fixed, thanks for letting me know!

I created a Rust translation, please take a look!

Ah, that's a good point, thanks! I'm too lazy to update the solution though :P

I made a Rust translation, please take a look!

True. Although probably not important for the 8th kyu. Thanks :)

Thanks! Sadly it means I won't get credited for doing the translation :(

I can't copy-paste that because it doesn't have the markup. You have to put it inside ``` blocks if you want me to copy-paste it.

Also, I don't see a difference between this description and the one I have here. You sure you're looking at the correct page?

As an alternative, you can reject my current translation, and I'll make a new one which will automatically copy the current description.

Sure! I updated the description.

Done, please approve this one. (The old code works fine with Rust 1.50, but I had to change it anyway since CodeWars won't let me submit anything without changing it.)

Thank you for the feedback! I made the requested change.

This kata seems awkward to translate to idiomatic Rust as is.

Yeah, probably not worth the effort. Can I rescind the translation somehow?

Hum, that's odd and unfortunate. I assume that can't be fixed?

As far as I understand, this was done to avoid exposing rand's types in quickcheck's API. I think that can be fixed in quickcheck itself. People are already clamoring for this, so I expect it'll be done eventualy.

Thanks for approving the translation!

Thanks! I updated my translation.

I've raised an issue for the addition of equality checks for floats, which I think might be useful for this translation

Nice! I adopted it here.

I haven't worked with quickcheck much, but considering it uses rand, would perhaps the following be easier?

I prefer QuickCheck because when a test fails, QuickCheck narrows it down to the smallest inputs that still produce a failure. This helps when you can't quite figure out the problem: QuickCheck's failures nudge you towards the solution. With "rand in a loop" approach you're at the mercy of the RNG: sometimes the tests will give you hints, and sometimes they won't.

quickcheck::Gen is an extension over Rng, so I could use gen_range() with it too.

However, float_eq made me upgrade this kata to Rust 1.50, which brought in quickcheck-1.x.y, where Gen is no longer derived from Rng :( So I went with your suggestion instead.

And yeah, I didn't think what'll happen if the values are too large. Thanks for pointing that out!

It's not required, but I personally remove the default comments:

I keep them in case people aren't familiar with Rust testing. I'll probably stop doing that in more advanced katas, where we can assume that people can code in Rust already.

I translated this to Rust, please take a look!