Fixed.

It may be a joke or maybe not. Up to the coder.

I agree with you, only atheist can be programmers and there are no place for religion staff here

The Bible is a good book.

Nice catch. Fixed.

See examples given. I've also updated the description. Thanks.

Hi, that is truly good point. Thank you for this kind discussion. To be absolutely sure that we change it in a right way we have to add some kind of reference to a well-known book/resources, or, may be better, an opinion poll voting results from the Forum taking into attention Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy and votes weights.

Imho, it is not such an important case.

If you think another way, one can propose to add a little note at a line of the task.

good point

sticking to "depth" rather than to "cycle length"?
"branch" is a good idea, yes.

ah cool. Do you think the description needs a tiny update?

not totally sure... I feel like there is a misunderstanding here. What you're seeking for here is "cycle length" rather than recursion depth. Problem being that if you encounter a nromal termination there is no cycle. So you cannot return 2 for that dead branch because it would be interpreted as a cycle/infinite recursion of length 2. Another option could have been to return infinity in a way or another, tho, the author chose to ask for 0 instead, which kind of makes sense too (in the way it allows to distinguish infinite recursions with different lengths and no inifnite recursion cases), since you need at least one call to get an infinite recursion so a cycle of at least length 1. So I don't really see the inconsistency for now.

Does that clear the air? Or am I missing something?

can you provide an actual input with that case? I have troubles to follow your train of thoughts, here.