TIL Enum.uniq exists, nice!

After reading through the comments, I realized that this is probably my mistake.

If I am not wrong on this, then there're several other tests that share the same problem.

@zebralan ..

• Many many Thanks Bro for such a useful touch Naming the language You've attempt the problem in , Making it more easier to heal the issue
• concerning Seems like a bug of codewars itself I agree with you , since this Kata has been Completed in Scala 32 times and it's only one has raised even an issue about it
• any way , I've mentioned Scala translator to Check it and do the necessary
• Happy to follow you Bro .. and I'll keep the issue unresolved till modifications occur .. Regards .. Zizou

Cheers!

I also figured out name is redundant in type and typeParam. It's always available through userType -> simpleUserType, where the [ "<" typeParams ">" ] is optional. That saved a lot of time on ambiguous parsing.

@JohanWiltink Updated.

(JS)

The description is not updated and I ran into the same issue ..

( For me, it is not easy to guess. )

Thanks guys. I nearly forget the existence of this kata :)

Okey. I forget about that one, though I did accommodate it with my code :).

This is still not complete, it can not hold cases like () -> B -> Function0<B>.
Anyway, it is easy to guess the what the proper form should be, though the desc. need to be updated.

I guess the Kotlin bnf should actually be the following?

name           ::= 
typeParam      ::= name
                 | "*"
                 | "in " name
                 | "out " name
                 | simpleUserType
typeParams     ::= typeParam [ "," typeParams ]
simpleUserType ::= name [ "<" typeParams ">" ]
userType       ::= simpleUserType [ "." userType ]
parameters     ::= type [ "," parameters ]
functionType   ::= "(" parameters ")" "->" type
type           ::= functionType
                 | name
                 | userType

If it is so, then the Java one will have to be modified as well.

Indeed! Thanks!

I am very sorry: a comma was missing; you should have had "00|15|17, 11|15|59, 02|22|00, 02|47|16, 02|32|34, 01|17|20, 12|17|20, 01|22|34, 02|17|17". I have corrected. I tried your solution and now it passes without "hack":-) Thanks and cheers!