:) You're welcome!

Ha! I didn't even notice the parameter ordering in Reduce.
And that's an awesome reference sheet. Thank you for sharing.

Thanks! You could still use parseInt and parseFloat, or "+" depending on the use case (i.e. parsing strings with non-numerical characters vs. parsing hex values), but I find "+" convenient for working with TypeScript in general.

Here is a helpful table for reference:
https://i.stack.imgur.com/QNMfI.png

*Lol at second glance it appears I accidentally flipped the params in reduce. Should be:
.reduce((acc, n) => acc + n)

That's fantastic use of the "+" unary operator.
No need for parseInt or parseFloat!

Approved updated translation. Thanks.

Updated Ruby translation, including the "historical" tests.

Cheers for confessing your mistake. Most don't :-)

My apologies dinglemouse -- I indeed made a mistake. Yes it was JavaScript -- thank you. And Thanks for putting words in my mouth FArekksu -- so helpful.

Sorry. Rejected.

Another "my solution is perfect, your kata is bad" user. Just manually checked all fixed tests and the reference solution - everything's correct.

My money goes to javascript. But I can't see what's wrong with them.

OK. This needs investigation.

Please say which language, which tests are wrong, and the reason you think so.

Many of the test cases are wrong, even after testing them against unlocked solutions.