I guess that checking for a for-each-loop use in a solution means checking for an iterator method call. So maybe you can extend ArrayList (or other implementation to be used as a fn parameter) and override iterator method. Like that:

class MyList<T> extends ArrayList<T> {
        @Override
        public Iterator<T> iterator() {
            throw new UnsupportedOperationException();
//            return super.iterator();
        }
    }

Maybe do the same for some other methods (get for example).

This kata is supposed to be simple, so I didn't want to complicate it.

If the numbers provided are larger than the 32-bit integer limit, return an array consisting of the size of the arrays but 0

Why? Just use long[] instead of int[]?

The description has this:

For example, if you have

note that using frequency inside the loop condition is definitely a bad practice: you're computing again and again the same things.

Random tests have been added.

that's not what he's talking about ;)

Publishing a kata lacking some of the required stuff is the best way to get it retired in no time. Honestly, you're just losing your time, doing so, that's too bad.

Yes, I have. I just posted this right now, I do intend on adding random tests soon, but I was on a time limit. This kata was made during a break at a lecture, so I didn't have a massive amount of time to make it.

Hi! This was a mistake, I forgot to remove the lines saying that you had to use streams! My bad!

Author's solution uses a stateful predicate, which does not conform to requirements of filter predicate (see docs and some explanation).

Hi,

No random tests.

Did you read the documentation about authoring? You really should. You'll realize that this kind of kata as very few chances to survive the beta phase.

Cheers

I've never properly understood how to do that... Do I load the file as a string or something?
How exactly would I check for a for loop?

Probably if you are aiming to use java streams, you should have a method that checks it. I see some solutions using the for loop

My bad! I forgot to hit re-publish!