This type of thing is often the best solution to a problem!

Thank you! I appreciate the advice very much. I'll try to think of a better way to make this problem something different (and I'll probably unpublish it if I can't, and work on something else of course).

Thanks for the tip on gitter. I haven't used it before. I appreciate the appreciation since I did put a good bit of effort into this kata. I spent a while thinking about how to even go about it. I think some of you all are expecting some high level kata (or expect me to be much more involved in this community somehow without having published a kata before), but I understand some of the points. I probably would've been willing to unpublish or just rework this previously, but as said, I was a bit discouraged by the issues (or more specifically the approaches Voile and Johan took to them). It doesn't exactly inspire cooperation, admiration, or anything else of the sort. I might come back and work on this some to try to improve it (and make it less of a 'duplicate') once I get some free time if that makes anyone happy, although it seems clear that most people commenting are of the opinion that I should unpublish and probably drop off of the kata-making side of the site.

Thanks for the input.

Previously forgot to mark as resolved.

Request declined.

Not quite exact, but discouraging nonetheless. Thanks.

I might just be a bit naive still; this is my first kata, but I was really interested by this problem and wanted to come up with a good way to implement it. I saw that a lot of cipher solutions were using hard-coded numbers without much readability or versatility and wanted to encourage that. Are these simple ciphers really that 'solved'? And where's that, the caesar cipher by any key, I hadn't (and still haven't) seen it.

How is this a duplicate? Caesar cipher is by 13. This is by a variable n. This is a new take on the problem to give it some life in my opinion. I haven't seen it elsewhere, and it leaves a lot of room for innovation.

I've added a note for that now. Thank you for pointing it out.

Lambda functions are fun for one liners on codewars problems, though.

and, on top of that, the last comment only says perfect rather than perfect square

Typo Fix:

but years divisible by 100 are no leap years

should be

but years divisible by 100 are not leap years

It's grabbing the function's arguments.
It does so by converting the function to a string and testing it against that regex;
The regex is effectively just ignoring everything but the stuff inside '()' of the function definition.
I was writing a step by step, but it wasn't the best anyways, and I deleted it haha.