Wish the description would have put it that clearly.

because lambda suffers from the same vulnerability as method, while proc does not: CHEESE

Refined a little further.

• Added context block for additional scoping
• Prefered lambda over method
• wrapped lambda in let for additional scoping

Verified this solution no longer passes.

yeah, the ruby situation will stay a... situation as long as the files will be merged together.

yep that's the one

You most probably mean this: https://docs.codewars.com/languages/ruby/authoring#reference-solution but I'm not a Ruby person so I'm not familiar with actual implications of one approach or another.

mmhm good question, I was able to find them by first solving it the normal way, but I do remember some docs (on CW ?) recommending procs over methods to guard against users using the ref solution

question is: can you discover them without "cheating"? Because procs come with their own problmes as well (not here, but in general)

I can use your ref methods for the random tests -> use procs instead of methods for the ref solution

Ah. Thanks. I thought you were requesting JS translation.

the dummy JS version is still there, tho

=> you need to delete it from the edit panel

Thanks for the feedback!

I like this too, but I didn't know you could change the method signature, but your way of doing so was elegant. It effectively side-steps the whole issue.

Wow, you definitely blow my mind and you have introduce to me Recursion. Thank you sir.