Improve Sum of Multiples exercise

[kytrinyx]

See the discussions in exercism/exercism#2654 and exercism/go#256

There's been a bit of confusion due to the whole "defaults" thing (use 3 and 5 as defaults if no arguments are passed). I made that up sometime at the dawn of Exercism, and I regret it.

I would much rather have a cleaner problem statement with no defaults.

In order to fix this we would need to

• clarify the README
• create a canonical set of shared test inputs/outputs in sum-of-multiples.json
• fix all of the existing implementations

[alebaffa]

Hi, is this exercise still under revision?
UPDATE: ok I found this comment on PR #209 👍

[kytrinyx]

Yeah, if you look at all the related links in this thread, the issue needs to stay open as long as there are green badges:

[NobbZ]

I will try to tackle xlfe this weekend.

[NobbZ]

I took the freedom to tackle xlfe as well as xclojure.

But I am far from beeing an expert about the various lisp dialects and their different idioms, so building up the new testsuites was a very straightforward mechanical process, for sclojure, I even used 2 replace by regexp of my editor (against the lfe version) and I was ready to go in theory, but I fine tuned a little bit, because in the original suite there was used a zero? predicate instead of checking equality to 0…

So both should be reviewed by track maintainers or track-VIPs at least.

[NobbZ]

Both got merged so it should be done now.

[petertseng]

Great job, all involved