It's really based on your "coding style" on how to reduce or limit the coding variable language used, and for the sake of an "idea", we can insert the word "updated version". (Just a comply) Good luck

@macobo, no worries; there doesn't appear to be any controversy. Valid points were addressed, no objections were made, and the thread remained civil, so the outcome appears to be positive.

@Voile, admittedly I was being a bit fatuous but I see your point.

Okay. Let me open that cage and release the beast ;-)

That's not called "easier", that's called "less annoying".

I'd have no problems banning require in a kata about big integers for obvious reasons, but not here.

@myjinxin2015, if you think require should be allowed, feel free to make the change.

@macobo's first bullet point points to the contrary.

Why? Leaving require there does not make the kata any easier.

@macobo I disabled require for this kata.

Happy coding ^_^

Hi, thanks for your feedback and for taking the time to solve it. All similar katas expect a function that expects the next iteration so I intentionally made a slightly different implementation. Oh and I've added an empty array test as well.

OK, Done. It should correct now ^_^

It seems my code contains errors, I'm working for it now ;-)

OK, @kazk,
I've added a note of this in the description ;-)