sweet
avoid the default param in this public call as it could result in the function being called with an unintended accumulator value
This comment is hidden because it contains spoiler information about the solution
Thanks, it makes sense.
respect!
I agree
Cool use of guards!
Nice one
more clean I think than using combination of filter/sum Here you've just travel the list one time
It wouldn't, but something like 51., 122. would, also capturing groups when they're not used.
51., 122.
nice tail call optimization
It looks like it would incorrectly return true for most integer, "1000000, 1000000" for example.
Loading collection data...
sweet
avoid the default param in this public call as it could result in the function being called with an unintended accumulator value
This comment is hidden because it contains spoiler information about the solution
Thanks, it makes sense.
This comment is hidden because it contains spoiler information about the solution
sweet
respect!
I agree
Cool use of guards!
Nice one
more clean I think than using combination of filter/sum
Here you've just travel the list one time
It wouldn't, but something like
51., 122.
would, also capturing groups when they're not used.nice tail call optimization
It looks like it would incorrectly return true for most integer, "1000000, 1000000" for example.
This comment is hidden because it contains spoiler information about the solution
Loading more items...