Rust translation

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I agree they should be treated as integers, but IIRC six years later, at the time the solution tests didn't treat them this way.

Marking resolved.

This kata also has inconsistent specs of what is wanted between languages, it really should go imo.

@goldenratio161 There is a (slow) effort to handle duplicate kata, see here.

(This kata is already in the todo list)

How is 798 solves in almost 10 years called "active"? That's actually a very pathetic number for a kata with the 3 most popular language versions (which touches the other issue I have with CW's kata suggestion system: lots of approved katas never see the light of day and it's always the same g964 crap getting suggested).

The linked duplicate has 6526 solves; if you're only counting katas based on how active it is (for whatever "active" means), you should see that it's 8 times more active and hence should be prioritized over this kata.

That kata's also created a year earlier than this kata, so it wins from time of creation standpoint too.

And anyways, no, the duplicate is non-negotiable, since the same solution passes both katas after accounting for certain unreasonable input validations.

true, but really? author probably didn't know about this and to just retire an active kata like that is kinda sad imo. still, we shall see what the people think so I won't close this issue now.

In languages where a bool is an int, bools should be treated as integers, e.g. [2,True,False] -> '11'.

Straightforward - awesome!

This is basically the same or an easier version of https://www.codewars.com/kata/57a55c8b72292d057b000594/python

Approved

My apologies. I hadn't realised there was that tag.

You can check the tags of a kata before trying it. The ones tagged "Puzzles" often require some guessing and trial and error. Not everyone likes these kinds of challenges, so it's ok if you want to avoid them.

Please don't give hints in the comments of puzzle challenges.

thanks for this comment

The random tests no longer incorrectly supply what would amount to an attempt at an "empty array" in C.