It helps :) still, the whole description is a bit misleading. There are many ways to represent a number, but a "String" (capital S) representation of a "Number" (capital N) is one.
"The purpose of this kata is to introduce you to the evolution of modern mathematical concepts" does not really reflect the purpose.
Exactly, this is a very important matter when employing inheritance. Also, the "constructor" property should also be checked; it would fail in your solution, too.
You shouldn't define methods on the constructor since every new instance would have its own seperate methods. This would cause unnecessary memory consumption and degraded performance.
You should define these methods on the prototype property of the Vector function, instead.
It's actually a very bad idea if implemented in a real world scenario. You wouldn't want to execute your code just to check if it's the code you would like to execute.
This comment is hidden because it contains spoiler information about the solution
It helps :) still, the whole description is a bit misleading. There are many ways to represent a number, but a "String" (capital S) representation of a "Number" (capital N) is one.
"The purpose of this kata is to introduce you to the evolution of modern mathematical concepts" does not really reflect the purpose.
This comment is hidden because it contains spoiler information about the solution
Needs more test cases involving multiple parameters.
Is there a problem with the 1/3 test case? Its expectation is quite weird.
The definition is not related with the kata at all. Misleading and pointless.
Exactly, this is a very important matter when employing inheritance. Also, the "constructor" property should also be checked; it would fail in your solution, too.
Definitely not a 5 kyu kata with the timeout.
You shouldn't define methods on the constructor since every new instance would have its own seperate methods. This would cause unnecessary memory consumption and degraded performance.
You should define these methods on the prototype property of the Vector function, instead.
Test cases should include real functions and arguments; my solution wouldn't work with real use of arguments as I've mistakenly used call over apply.
It's actually a very bad idea if implemented in a real world scenario. You wouldn't want to execute your code just to check if it's the code you would like to execute.