I laughed (and, tbh, it still deserves the Best Practice vote XD )

Man I'm surprised that someone actually replied to a 6 year old solution from when I was trolling around on Codewars :)

Aren't you supposed to implement this method on your own?

puuuurdy good 🦊

Hi,
I made similar solution, but instead of 'n' as number of rotation, I made n%data.lenght.
As a beginner my question is- does pefrormance improve in that situation? Program does not to f.e 12004 rotations, but has to make a division and get rest of that.

Since the kata isn't a puzzle, I think that shouldn't be spoilered. A new issue should be raised about how vague that sentence is TBH...

sentence: 'unalwfbkaerifqqsmgn.lnjxkx', expected: 'Ja '. Which part of that is laughter?

The given test cases assume the "Ja"'s and dots to be combined without spaces, while the actual test cases expect them to be seperated by spaces.

@JohanWiltink - I figured you'd be more conscientious about the katas that you approve; seeing this one out of beta was an unexpected surprise. But now that the kata has been approved I take it we can trust you'll resolve the outstanding issues?

Old kata, you perfectly know how lax was the beta process some years ago. And you perfectly knew it wasn't matching the current "standards" either.

And yet it collected enough upvotes to become approvable. People like it. Who are you, or I, to destroy it?

just say it... x/

Ka Ka Kata[stroph]

right, I forgot about that one...

• The puzzle tag, if any, isn't an excuse to just drop a kata where nothing is done properly.
  • If it's a puzzle, requirement do not have to be completely explained, but the sample tests then have to contain relevant inputs so that the actual requirements can be found. So far, that's not at all the case.
  • If it's not a puzzle, the description has to explain how to spot the "laughs".
• not enough random tests

In any case, the current setup is just bad.