Neat kata. I don't even know where to start Q_Q

I glanced at the solutions and saw a top answer used

if (array[0].length == 0) { return new int[0]; }

which is a little simpler than what I tried

Update: I figured something out but it seems kind of clumsy. idk if this is what the author had in mind...

if (array.length == 1 && array[0].length == 0) {
return new int[0];
}

My java solution handles all of the tests, except for the empty array test. When array = { {} } it complains about indices. Any advice for how to determine if the array is empty like this?

Narrowly passed ;) Big numbers sure are cool!

I am so close to completing it #(E#*(@*WUR(*UQ)_!PO My output looks like this and it's the worst

Lorem  ipsum  dolor  sit amet,
consectetur  adipiscing  elit.
Vestibulum   sagittis   dolor
mauris,  at  elementum  ligula
tempor  eget.  In quis rhoncus
nunc,  at  aliquet orci. Fusce
at   dolor   sit   amet  felis
suscipit   tristique.   Nam  a
imperdiet  tellus.  Nulla  eu
vestibulum    urna.    Vivamus
tincidunt  suscipit  enim, nec
ultrices  nisi  volutpat  ac.
Maecenas   sit   amet  lacinia
arcu, non dictum justo. Donec
sed  quam  vel  risus faucibus
euismod.  Suspendisse  rhoncus
rhoncus  felis  at  fermentum.
Donec lorem magna, ultricies a
nunc    sit    amet,   blandit
fringilla nunc. In vestibulum
velit    ac    felis   rhoncus
pellentesque. Mauris at tellus
enim. Aliquam eleifend tempus
dapibus. Pellentesque commodo,
nisi   sit   amet   hendrerit
fringilla,  ante  odio  porta
lacus,   ut   elementum  justo
nulla et dolor.

Cool kata.

I can't believe I didn't think of that lol. Just print it to standard out at the top of the method. Thanks again

I will look at this. Thanks!

Hello. I am very close to completing this kata. But with the Random tests my output is always 1 less than expected! For example,

RandomTests
expected:<132> but was:<131>

Is there a way that I can view the input string that resulted in a failing test?

Curse these random tests I am so close to passing >:(

Wow!

Cool solution. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that it would be faster to compute the case fac = 2 separately, and then only cycle through odd #s