from billion variations i see solution without unrequired minmaxes (as well as mine).

in my opinion it is the best option

The spurious pattern laziness and the also spurious imports seem to be leftovers from an earlier version.

If you're refactoring anyway, change the tuple to a list ( the pattern matching will still work ) and do without toList.

Of course, I was just commenting because for me, as a mathematician, it was on the first glance confusing that this actually works :D

To be fair, the type definition is Int -> Int, not (Num a) => a -> Int, so a Double would never be allowed into the function.

Note that this definition would not work for Double, e.g. 2.25=1.5^2 would be sent to 2^2=4, because 1.5 gets rounded to 2, although 2.25 is closer to 1 than to 4.

Nice! So clean

It's not about size. In point-free version cycle "10" will most likely be evaluated only once (even if you don't really need it in this case)

beautiful

Well, you can fuse the map/reduce logic together into one reduce call if you prefer that way. I think it's more clear in this way, although less efficient.

You can simplify this a bit with unsafeRegex from Data.String.Regex.Unsafe.

Hey guys,

I've made a Purescript translation of this challenge, would anyone care to review it please? It's my first translation, so I'd be happy to take any feedback on board for future challenges.

It's not even a method, just a function.

If you are new to programming I guess it's recursion that confuses you in this example.
Notice the remove function in the body is the same one that's defined with the function keyword on line 1.