I guess i do. Maybe after I¨ll actually programm something real it might get better.. Still thank you and have nice day. :)

The description doesn't say it.

What will happen if someone has a two part name, like von Braun? Or it will include some tags, processed afterwards, that should be not capitalized?

You're overthinging it :)

I guess. Still better behaviour would be to capitalize every words inside the answer, don't you thing?

How exactly it matters? say_hello('john') => "Hello, john" would be an expected behavior.

Maybe I missed it but what about the case when name elements can be lowercase?

Love me some f-strings

This, but i did it gross.

For Python, this Kata is a nice opportunity to learn why the trivial instruction one may want to use shouln't be. Perhaps this could be precised in the details ?

@rowcased Maybe my original code was not indented right. Thank you for your clarification. It happened to me twice that i debugged a code because one of the variable names was the same as function's.

a function's scope can contain a variable matching its name, so your final code doesn't actually throw any error, but yes, it is a bad practice

It is strange I had almost the same code as this one. The only difference is I use "factorial" instead of "j".
Then it gave me the error. Is this because my variable name is the same as function name? Is it a bad coding habit?

The kata is still not novel at all.

It's not a duplicate if there isn't a 101% identical kata

That's not how it works.

no, you didn't get the idea. Currently, you have most of the tests that are predictable: the first random will be the most probable answer, and the following ones will always give the same result. That's way too much predictable.

What you need is something like that:

for _ in range(100):
    strategy = random.randint(0,3)
    if strategy==0: # pick one number randomly
    elif strategy==1: # build a square
    elif strategy==2: # build a palindrome
    else:             # build both at the same time.

Note that the way you currently build the squares, there are a lot of chances that then can be identified just by checking the value: if it's > 1000, the user will know it's a square. So you actually need something like int(randint(1,...)**.5)**2, and you should use an upper value that is higher than 1000. For the square palindromes, just store a long list of those numbers and pick randomly inside it when you need one of them.

Final note: you shouldn't resolve the issues unless you're absolutely sure that you actually resolved the problem. You already did that twice in a row without actually solveing the problem... ;/

I've updated the random tests so that there are always some squares, palindromes and palindromic squares.

I suppose there's still a small chance that in a given attempt all the randomly generated squares happen to be palindromes, and all the randomly generated palindromes happen to be squares. I could put a while to make sure each strategy is randomly tested at least once, but I think that is stretching the point.