At least javascript:

• Tests should fail without errors if the result is not an array.
• Tests should accept pairs [a,b] where a > b (descritpion explicitly says that 256 -> [[8,2],...] is valid).

In Python, the submission tests go up to 1000 while the description only states that inputs go to 500.

Depending on the tests in the other languages, either the description should be updated or the Python tests should be changed to match the description.

Lua translation!

Hi

I'm waiting for the python version to rank this kata , but IMHO it must be approximatively ranked as part II.
A bit more complex, but same mechanisms are involved.

Approved

python new test framework

no answer from OP.

Whoever called words with subsequent characters on the same key 'good' obviously never typed on one of these.

Typing a second character on the same key as the last meant you had to wait for the first character to time-out before you could continue typing...

I found the instructions very confusing.

I'd simplify it by saying that a good char is in the same column or row of buttons as the previous char.

This behaviour is by design. Int wraps. ( Int might be 64 bits, but will always be bounded. )

After looking at everyone else's solutions, I realised that the test for the num crate is just pattern matching on "num", which means you can't use that as part of a variable name, e.g. num_string, digits_of_number.

It should be possible to pattern match just on the use statement instead.

Best of luck, everyone!

In my opinion, this is the best solution!

I've got a Rust solution which failed the "num" crate check, since I used the div_floor function from there. Thought only num::BigInt was disallowed. No matter, I removed the dependency, and it still failed the crate check, so I removed all dependencies (itertools) and it still fails the crate check. I reset the environment with the button at the bottom, still fails. I don't know what to do now. Any ideas? I'm guessing the crate is still installed somewhere so the test is failing.

This was quite an interesting one!, nice karta

Yes, 421 people have did it in fact. Your code is wrong and not optimized. Doing semi-based recursion is not the way to solve this. You may resort to character-by-character analysis and find some properties of multiplication.