#applicatives

Exellent solution!!Nice code.

i think that i have found the cause of the bug and fixed it in this fork, but i still dont know Haskell so i'd be happy if an exeperienced Haskell programmer could review it

i am unable to comprehend Haskell so I cannot fix the issue; if someone is able to fix this I will gladly accept a fork

Well, mathematically speaking, "having one solution" means "having at least one solution", i.e. being solvable. So are the solutions always unique, is that what the kata wants to say?

Not very. It's so small because it has virtually no brains.

Major advantage is it's easy to prove correct, and ( within reason ) who cares about CPU time anyway?

Mod chains can be fun, indeed :-)

If you like code golfing, I suggest to visit https://code.golf/

I just found it funny. Great, the other might be the shortest solution possible.

Lot of work for 1 char saving ;-) However, I have a much shorter solution:
https://www.codewars.com/kata/reviews/61dbc1e28dab430001928ff5/groups/61dc18139d546f00013188a0

cheers

I had the same problem, very obscure that you cannot name your function hex... I mean, I get the problem, but how should one know...?

Agree

Of course, I was just commenting because for me, as a mathematician, it was on the first glance confusing that this actually works :D

To be fair, the type definition is Int -> Int, not (Num a) => a -> Int, so a Double would never be allowed into the function.

I just thought this sentence could be reformulated a bit: "It must be possible to follow the line with no ambiguity (lookahead of just one step, and never treading on the same spot twice)."

We misinterpreted it like, if you have two options to go from a corner, but only one leads to a valid path, then the line would still be valid.

I'm no native speaker, but what about something like: "It must be possible to follow the line without ever treading on the same spot twice, and by going step by step without ever having to choose between two adjacent and still unvisited tiles to go next. (The latter condition might hold only in one direction. The line will still be considered valid in this case.)"

The Kata description is not clear.

I think there is no problem with the description except too many people do not read it carefully.

How is it not clear? How should it be improved?