Very good kata :>

I don't think it is necessary.

Approved.

Oops, I'm sorry I doesn't read that yet.

I fixed the return type of reference solution. And I still don't know how to fix user can modify the input ;-;

At the past discourse, ejini战神 has fixed my issue of the user can modify input of this C++ translation. I have remove the actual variable and keep expected variable just like ejini战神 did.

Does it good now ?

I have computed the actual and expected value first. So this isn't the way to fix it ?.

And I have fixed these warnings.

Okay, I will read it and adding custom assertion messages later.

• Point 1: It's my bad.
• Point 2: I just don't know why the reference solution shoud be inside a describe block. What is the difference of inside and outside the describe block ?. Can you explain it to me ?
• Point 3: I'm sorry this was my bad too. I'm just too new to the solution that prevent user modify the input. But later I will try not to make these mistakes anymore.

Does the translation is good now ?

Oops sorry, I have forgot this translation. Does it good now ?

Why my stupid solution still pass with all test cases ? :v.

I think there shoud be a test like the test1 of this fork. With that test, my solution will be wrong. And I think there mustn't have any solution like this :v.

C++ translatation.