The point of solving the issue was making it as short as possible.
Therefore, using the arrow function and removing the brakets were neccary.

It's clever, but not best practice at all :)

Das wäre in der Tat auch eine Lösung gewesen,
aber ich wollte ja eine möglichst kurze Lösung haben. :P

Davon abgesehen, sollte man die Funktion nicht auf meine Art implementieren, und auch möglichst auch ein reverse mit anschließender for-Schleife ;D

In this case he had to remove the given brackets so this actually took longer, but very clever!

In my opinion this is the best solution.

its because its written there <= means superior or equal

I think the kata author should add what exactly the function should return.
I'm a newbie and the format of the tests is unusual for me (more often [accepts, returns correct] in multiple lines), so I'm confused whether the function should return a string as 'Very Even' or true/false

Nice!

A c# string is nullable per default, unless you explicitly enable the nulllable check in the compiler, which was introduced in .NET 6+.
And even then you'll only get a warning during compilation time. If you ignore it, the program WILL crash when the string is null during runtime.

Yea, but we now know, because the input is string and not string? that the input isn't null ;)

Не будет работать, если s1 = 90, s2 = 90, s3 =90

What do you mean by "legal"?
It's just a very spectacular way of solving this issue, but would never found a way into any prod code,
due it's complexity.

But it works for sure and is correct nontheless. :)

Is it legal?

This makes me realize i need to use arrow functions more