parameter has been renamed

.

thanks for the feedback. Some valid points there!! I have addressed your concerns regarding the building rules and wonder what you think of it now?

Well spotted on those plurals! Have added a bit more info for the <3 / non-integer case. Thanks for the feedback, great stuff!

Thanks for the appreciation, Katbow! The array of values '_'ending with 'x' should be quite useful for the codewarrior to debug the solution. Getting the right path is the most valuable info of course, and most of the tests check the path rather than the array. But you still need to get the values array right to pass this kata.

Nope, it was just waiting on some additional ranking feedback from users. I ranked it and was able to approve it :)

Yes I can see how that might have appeared confusing. Have made the necessary changes. Thanks!

CM is definitely right (+1!): try on my most recent fork and let me know if you have any other problem :)

You(or the translator) can fork the translation and update the description to the new one.
The fork can then be approved.

I think the best course of action is to approve a translation, then eventually fine tune it yourself (provided you know the language or, otherwise, feel free to ask for a little more support), as I am not sure about how forking here can work well.

As far as the Ruby use of characters goes, it is a well known (and regrettably not yet solved) issue that you can't use unusual characters with it. I tried for a LONG while a lot of workarounds, including inputing HTML codes for those characters, but nothing seemed to work properly.

I am open to suggestions about it, but otherwise I think we will have to do with a slightly different approach, not that imho it affects the challenge or the learning you can get from this kata :)

Note that String.match returns null if there are no matches, which explains the first line of the message: the random string generated for the test case presumably doesn't contain one of the nucleotides. Since length is not defined for null objects, your variable countX remains undefined. Also note you are returning a string, whereas the description says you should be returning an object.

I didn't catch that this was supposed to be a joke, sorry for misinterpreting you there.

In your citation you are forgetting the :-) . I wanted this sentence to be a joke, maybe a bad joke. If somebody finds it as insulting or condescending I am very sorry and I apologize.

"it means that the result is evident by itself for you if you make your brain work"

Wow, can you be any more condescending? Attitude like this is pure poison for a learning environment. Please refrain from remarks like that, not only are they the opposite of helpful, you also come across like a giant douchebag. No offense.