Reraised as an Issue later.
that's a good code
Publication date is on the description page.
This kata was first. Closing.
WTF? How did you know about this?
this is true, but too much specific to JS. Won't be added (especially now)
This comment is hidden because it contains spoiler information about the solution
Since has, having, and with are synonyms, any of the following should be permitted, and should have the same result:
jane.has(2).arms.each(arm => has(1).hand.having(5).fingers )
jane.has(2).arms.each(arm => having(1).hand.having(5).fingers )
jane.has(2).arms.each(arm => with(1).hand.having(5).fingers )
As far as I can tell, only having is tested, and in fact with is a JS keyword so it's likely to cause problems for many solutions.
The suggestion was to break it into several katas that gradually build up to this (I even gave examples of them, so it really shouldn't be confusing).
But it's been 5 years since I suggested that, so you feel free to just not do it.
Not a suggestion. And any easier katas based on this idea would not be interesting/original.
WoW! use Reg to solve this kata. cool