XD

I don't like it :(

I like it XD

Updated description. Let me know if OK so we can close.

I'll look into getting a Python translation...

but I don't do JS!! x)

Hi @KenKamau, I've published a hard version of this kata at https://www.codewars.com/kata/59f98052120be4abfa000304. I'd appreciate it if you would link my kata in your description (I've referenced your kata in my description). Thanks 🖖

Already published: https://www.codewars.com/kata/59f98052120be4abfa000304 😎

That's exactly the same than before (almost). Again, the """problem""" is that you made a choice that might seem wierd. So say it "loudly". Here, you still let it appear as if it was something like a "rule" or more likely some kind of "truth". You might see people again with the same questions/arguments.

Again, be explicit. It's not funny, yes, but nobody will feel spoiled about the rules, this way (the explicit one, I mean). That or... change the algo. ;)

See the changes in the description. Previously it said : ...For example, solve(0,10) = 3, because there are only 3 upside down numbers >= 0 and < 10. They are 0, 1, 8...

Now it says ...For example, solve(0,10) = 3, because there are only 3 upside down numbers >= 0 and < 10. They are 0, 1, 8. No other numbers less than 10 are upside down numbers...

Thx B4B. I will update.

Maybe...:

"Considere the numbers 6969 and 9116. When you rotate them 180 degrees (upside down), these numbers remain the same (effectively, in this kata, we will considere that 1 is made of a simple vertical line)."

And maybe a foot note in addition:

"Note: digits 2 and 5 will not be considered "upside downable" in this kata."

Ok. Give me some wording I can use in the description. Then we can close this question.

ok, but not ok. ;)

You define the rules like you want, that's not the problem here. I just want you understand the somewhat illogical way you chose ("to justify") them here. Maybe you do only a straight line for your "ones", but just look at the font used on CW. It's NOT a straight line since it has 3 tiny things in addition, say a right arm and two feet. ;). And considering one doesn't know how one writes those digits by hand, one has to rely on the common thing to anyone: the font use on CW. And there lays the problem with your approach: with CW font, 1 != 1 reversed, so if you define 1 == 1 reversed nothing forbid to considere that 2 == 2 reversed and the same for 5. Nothing except... you saying it out loud in the description. Again, that's not a problem as long as you justify it with the "right argument", this one being here "you decide that 2 and 5 won't be considered" (and that's ok if it's explained), but not "try it by hand and you'll see..." because that approach doesn't work. ;)

That's just details, of course. But devil is in the details... ;)