+1 don't mutate original array

I tried to come up with a 'smart solution' and ended up with the dumbest piece of code ever. When I saw this, I cried a little.
Having an off day ...

Beautiful!

Same thing in my solution where I downcased twice, not necessary. Only had to be done once.

Iterate once. Keep track of x's and o's. Compare their length at the end.

n < 2n

Hhahaha.. you made it so simple :)

so, could you show us what is the solution if we have a long string?

this shit unreadable bruh

for long strings it is strongly inefficient cause it's iterating over the array two times

Pretty cool. Didn't know there was a count method for strings.

you make me feel ashamed of my crazy coding.

wat

You're right the description is not entirely correct, but neither is what you suggest. You do not have to construct and return a new list object. You can alter list a to be the desired output.