Bro I was trying to just remeber the Concat(). I'm trying to use the Linq library at it's maximum.

why the sarcasm?

I like this solution. Tho I wasn't aware of this as I'm just starting out, it's really nice to get a grasp on other/better ways to write code.

Thank you so much for your reply! So there is no reason to reivent the wheel trying to write some code on your own, which have same functionality as this already written and saved as functions in language libraries, right? I gotta trust that if there is built-in function it is most efficient and most safe for all purposes, is that correct?

Hi,

Yes, I think it's a good idea to use functions from a language's "standard library" whenever possible in order to avoid mistakes, performance issues etc. Once you learn them you can also save time and communicate better with other people who are familiar with them.

I believe the code in our solution is more readable, more concise and less error-prone. Notice you can read it almost as an English sentence, compared to low-level "mathematical" language in your solution. It becomes important when you read and maintain a large code base.

In summary, it's a good idea to operate on a high level of abstraction. Think about higher-order functions in functional programming or classes with their public methods in object-oriented programming.

This is probably corrected already, resolving for now. Let us know if you have any other issues.

I wrote you the reply somewhere else. Still doesn't work on some random cases (the expected result is just plain wrong).

I found only a user complaining and I cannot reproduce the error (all working fine for me): keep me updated if there are new developments!

I cannot reproduce the error, can you try again?

thank you!

It means your code must raise an error in case of division by zero. The test cases cannot actually check if that is a zero division error, so any type of error would be fine to pass the tests.

Could you please try again?

Could you please try again?