yay proper unit tests

since we're just returning true/false from each method, we can just return the conditional

Let's not override the thing that we're testing

the flatten method is overridden for the tests, so this solution doesn't work at all

Cleaned up the sorta cryptic variable names. Readable names trump sort names.

This is nice, but there is a lot of wasted cycles sorting and recalculating

Linq is a great framework for dealing with sets and lists, but often people use it as a fix everything and not really understand what is happening under the hood. For simple things, in my honest opinion, it's better to go with a pure C# solution instead of Linq to help increase the efficiency of the code. For complex things, then it's better to bring in Linq.

There we go, a solution without using Linq

I'm somewhat new to ruby so I didn't know how to pass a set of numbers. The other thing is that for the array test, as the length of numbers increases, the speed of the test decreases exponetally.

Two submission tests failed with contraditory reasons.

• dice(6,6) should always return 6
• dice(6,6) should always return 0

It's still very neat.

I did not know of that operator, and it looks quite useful.

How effecent is it?