approved

Thanks!

I'm curious why you made the verification function visible to the user. Don't people usually put it in preloaded?

Fixed.

I wouldn't say a warning is really an issue though, more of a suggestion. :-)

Approved by someone

It looks like the unused variable _ only exists to cause it to be initialized with the result of _write_t_buf etc. as a way to execute those functions in the for loop setup. It seems kind of hacky, and I made it be quiet in a similarly hacky way, by turning burying that unneeded return value in the 0 we actually needed earlier:

#define describe(what) for(int _d = 0 * (_write_t_buf(what)); _d < 1; (void)_rewind_t_buf(), ++_d)
#define context(what)  for(int _c = 0 * (_write_t_buf(what)); _c < 1; (void)_rewind_t_buf(), ++_c)
#define it(what)       for(int _i = 0 * (_write_t_buf(what), _print_descr(), _rewind_t_buf()); _i < 1; ++_i)

well, it SeemsToWork™

I think I have fixed this now

looks ok

Let's see with the translator of this kata into Rust: @akar-0

Fixed.

The warning is no longer there.

This message should not prevent your solution from passing if it's correct. I will remove the problem, but your solution is most probably wrong in some way.

approved

Because BigInt is clear enough as a general type, and some languages don't even have the concept of unsigned numbers. I see no reason to make this language specific if the exact type is clear from the signature.

description still mentions this ..

Function should return a number - BigInt (because some results can be really big) of all possible ways the frog can go down the staircase.

Note: I chose BigUint everywhere. I also refactored the tests and made better assertions, so mine is now the official version, sorry :)