Why not? If you have a function from THE STANDARD LIBRARY that can help you solve the problem, why would you create it from scratch?

Added some random tests.

Probably a definition created for learning purposes, but true, it does not exist anywhere on the internet being used with an array besides here.

Well made point.

Having 140 000 tests is not the correct way to test for performance and makes successful testing of a compliant solution take ten seconds. Correctly testing for performance can be done in less than a second for compliant solutions while consistently timing out for uncompliant ones. Testing can be valid and responsive.

Please also refer to the documentation.

Fixed, every double quotes now is paired (even length of quotes).

Fixed, every double quotes now is paired (even length of quotes).

This kata would only become interesting if there were some performance criteria.

On my side, I disagree (about "not adding anything") because the interesting part is actually to realize that similarity and how to handle that specific task. It won't be obvious to most users.

mmmm, maybe that was an infinite loop, I didn't check. Let's forget that part

Testing if brackets are paired is algorithmically very close to what is happening here. I am unconvinced it's not a duplicate. It's not a straight-up copy, and solutions will have to be adjusted, but the way of thinking will not have to be.

I would not class this as adding anything to Codewars over existing "verify bracket pairing" kata. The definition of a pair is a little expanded, is all.

It fits with the backstory, but it should be specified, implemented and tested correctly.

I see potential for it.

ETA: Also, without it, the kata is a duplicate and quite trivial.

Not missing a performance tag. What I would describe as a naive solution passes effortlessly.

missing a performance tag

What performance? My O(n^2) solution passes in 0.5 sec. Is there an even worse algorithm that should still pass?

This test has been removed.