Can I ask why this matters? It seems arbitrary to me, but I'm sure I just don't know something. Thanks. :)

As a 5kyu with 159 points, I did my third 4kyu, and only got one point. This isn't the first time I seem to get hardly any points for a problem that seems like it would give me more points. This is kind of frustrating... Can someone explain what is going on, and how I can reliably actually get more points? Is doing problems not an efficient way to get points?

Very irritating that this doesn't allow recursive solutions. That PS statement at the bottom isn't enough. I spent a long time working on an elegant recursive solution, even though I normally avoid recursion, simply because it seemed like the most fitting solution. Should title problem "Non-recursive linked-list reversal" to make clear. Should also have a recursive version of the problem.

Thanks for the comment! I am aware of what you mentioned. What seems tricky is that space complexity from recursive calls usually runs out before 6 seconds have taken, while higher time complexity but lower space complexity solutions will just chug for as long as they take, to some degree. At least, that's been my limited experience with the testing suite and six second timeout.

If I'm mistaken about how to do this, let me know. Would love to properly test.

When I ran my own version, I had a recursive call that I would have update a counter every time it ran, showing me how many times it was called at the end. I was thinking about specifying the recursive call inside in the part already given, and then using a sinon-spy style function-wrapper that injects a counter and notifies how many times it ran. That gives the user less flexibility in designing the function itself, though, and also gives a more direct clue on how it should (could) be written.

I tried searching for anything like this, because originally I just wanted to get points for a solution I had written. When I saw that one did not exist, I instead went and published my own. (Maybe it didn't show up in search results because it is in beta?)

In any case, I give both a recursive and non-recursive version, so that does seem to be a slightly higher value for this one, perhaps.

They're both in beta anyways. No idea how his test coverage is, or if there are other problems.

Came here to say the same thing, in so many words. It's painful having the naive solutions be at the top for this one.