OK ==> so this time I'll unpublish it ;) ["for real"]

Thanks for the contribution/advice/beta-testing ! ;)

@JohanWiltink

OK I guess I'll just have to unpublish it, then
(note: I thought the fact of "handling geometric sequences too" would be "fairly easy, using a simple trick", but the "no letter constraint" would kinda "force the user to use that trick" [or probably make "very difficult" to bypass it], while "allowing letters" would probably also "allow other kinds of [dumb] solutions" ==> so the constraint could be a bit "relevant"... but I guess it's still not "good" :/ so...)

@JohanWiltink
You're still focussing on solving a problem, as well as obfuscating the solution.

OK I do understand that point of view (which does make sense); but the idea could also be "how can I solve such a problem, without using any built-in function [nor keyword]"; in my suggestion, I explicitly mention the logarithm : some people might (maybe?) think "how am I supposed to implement that? [or bypass it]" (although for some [most?] people, it will probably be trivial)

The idea is: there are -certainly- many ways to build an Extrapolation Algorithm, and I'm pretty sure Haskell certainly gives nice build-ins to do that easily [or probably even libraries], but here the "no letter restriction" forces the user to build it from scratch, and to better understand the mathematical properties of the extrapolations (and Binomial Transform) than just "using all power (functions/keywords/libraries...) the language provides" [NOTE: I'm here talking about the hypothetical version with "detection and handling of Geometric sequences of all kinds, besides polynomial ones"]

@Voile Yesterday, just when going to bed, I had an idea [about how to make this Kata a a bit more "complex/relevant"], I don't know what you'll think of it:

==> What if instead of only handling "Polynomial extrapolation", I required the algorithm to handle Geometric sequences "of all kinds*" too? (* By that, I mean bascally sequences given by a function "whose logarithm is a polynomial") ==> AND I would require the algorithm to be "smart", i.e. "detect if the sequence is polynomial or geometric" (the given sequences will always be either "polynomial" or "geometric (in a generalized way)", with enough terms such that the algorithm can "identify the pattern" (e.g. if it's a polynomial of degree 3, the sequence will have at least 5 (or 6?) terms, so that the pattern is "not too ambiguous") In other words, the algorithm should be able to treat differently sequences like [1,2,4,8,16,32,...] than sequences like [1,2,3,4,5,6,...])

==> would it be "better"? 🙂

About the issue raised by @Voile (this Kata being way too similar to the previous one [sorry]) I had an idea [to make it more "complex"]:

==> What if instead of only handling "Polynomial extrapolation", I required the algorithm to handle Geometric sequences "of all kinds*" too? (* By that, I mean bascally sequences given by a function "whose logarithm is a polynomial") ==> AND I would require the algorithm to be "smart", i.e. "detect if the sequence is polynomial or geometric" (the given sequences will always be either "polynomial" or "geometric (in a generalized way)", with enough terms such that the algorithm can "identify the pattern" (e.g. if it's a polynomial of degree 3, the sequence will have at least 5 (or 6?) terms, so that the pattern is "not too ambiguous")
In other words, the algorithm should be able to treat differently sequences like [1,2,4,8,16,32,...] than sequences like [1,2,3,4,5,6,...])

==> would it be "better"? 🙂

Thanks again (also for teaching me Data.Char.isLetter, as I said, my current Haskell level is pathetic)

So your code does just "Skip the first line"?..
Isn't there a way to "cheat" by "putting letters on the first line" (and using semicolons or stuff like that to put a lot of code in only one line?..)
(I guess your algorithm is probably "more subtle than that", but I'm still asking "just in case"^^)

Ah OK natuurlijk :p

Nice, thank you very much! :)

@JohanWiltink
OK, but I must confess I'm not sure to understand what you mean [I see on Google there are references about "Spartan Anti-Cheat", but... (sorry again for my N00bness :/ )]
Do you mean "allowing comments" or just making the anti-cheat "more subtle"?.. or?..
EDIT: OK (I've just seen the "Suggestion" now)

@JohanWiltink Thanks :)
Note: if anyone has any idea/suggestion to "improve" this Kata / "make it worthy", don't hesitate to suggest: "I'm all ears" :)

Thanks;
And as for Voile's reported issue, what do you think?
Is my constraint "that tivial" (I guess yes, since even for a N00 like me, it was quite easy), and if "yes":
-Should I just unpublish the Kata?
or
-Is there maybe some way to "recycle" it; e.g. add an extra constraint (maybe a limit of characters?..)

==> Anyways, if I don't "unpublish" it (yet?), I guess I should at least "allow contributors", now, right? ^^

EDIT: I now "allowed contributors" ;) [although I guess I may just have to "unpublish it", given Voile's remark :/ ]

...Or is there -maybe- a possibility to -for instance- "add some constraint" ? (e.g. "limit in the number of character" or whatever?..)

Hmm OK so I guess I should just unpublish it ?.. :(

Hmm.. It probably does sound like a "good idea", indeed...
(But I guess it would make the anti-cheat a bit mor complex* [I guess I'd have to make use of some kind of "readLines" function or something]
[* not that it would be "very difficult", but... I mentioned on Discord, I just started -casually- reading about Haskell "something like 2 days ago"; so needless to say I'm an "Extreme N00b" at this point (yeah, publishing a kata at this point was probably a quite "crazy" idea, but... when learning the basics, I just made the algorithm for fun; it worked, so I thought it would be a fun Kata...)] )

[Note however that in this kind of "puzzle/challenge" (e.g. like in CodeGolf etc), I think the solutions are not necessarily supposed to be "Readable": I guess you can always make comments "for yourself" and remove them when publishing, and/or comment your solution (with a "[spoiler] message") once published, if you want people to understand it... maybe... ==> I'd be curious to know what other people think: would it really be "so much better" if comments were allowed or "it wouldn't fit so well with this kind of 'challenge'"?.. hmm... :/ ]

EDIT: note: I must admit that "getting quite cryptic [but fun] code (a bit like in BF CodeGolf or JSFck)" was quite my initial intention...

Thanks ! :D
I -obviously- hope too^^
(I thought it was "dead"; but I'm happy to see people are still testing/commenting it ==> Thanks for "bringing back some hope I had lost" :p )