I agree with you that 10 to the power of 9 is equivalent to 1e9.

Is it displayed as 10 to the power of 9 on your browser?

On my browser (latest version of Edge) it is literally disaplyed as the number 109.

The instruction should be updated:

Currently it says:
3 < n < 109

But I think you actually meant:
3 < n < 1e9

Is it expected to handle negative year cases (i.e. BC) or the case for zero? I think there are no description about this and the examples are all positive years :-)

That test expects more than just that the result be an empty list. It expects it to be the exact same empty list that was at the end of the list '(a)'.

Saved me from hours of debugging/testing.
Thank so much! That's it :)

Apologies for the delay.

It appears the second issue was because I have a wrong IDE settings and thus it complained about the syntax.

You said that the code doesn't compile but you passed.

Actually I just meant I had to reset the static variables I used for each test case (which looked a bit ugly) - maybe there are better solutions which I did not know.

So yea, please feel free to mark it as resolved and thanks for the Kata you have created.

The TypeScript translation of this Kata is quite problematic:

1. "static" (maybe this only applies to TypeScript translation) does not plays well between test cases - locally my test using mocha framework would work - but the exact test cases failed during submission
2. The given code actually does not even compile due to "Reserved word 'function' used as name".

Site appears to be down again :(

Same here - would have upvoted if it weren't for that.

I think that "type casting" alone deserve a seperate Kata and should not be mixed with this Kata.

Anyway thanks for the Kata - the "can be called infinitely" part is quite challenging. :)

Will it overflow if g is very large?

When I tried to submit my code, the fixed tests failed with an strange message "✘ 5".
Does not seem like I break the test since nothing like "Expected: <>, Actual: <>" was printed.
Would be great if any hints could be given.

I felt exactly the same when I was working on this Kata - never thought those "conditions" are not range of input.

Think this could be improved by giving a more explicit explaination like "validatation of those input to see if they fulfill the conditions are necessary".

I agree.
Unless the list is immutable, which I am afraid that we could not guarantee merely from the description of the Kata.

Then I would say the instruction is unclear - what if some warriors is not looking at the discource before they have finished the Kata?