Ah this is failing because the example implementation needs to include the code needed to pass the new test

Give me a sec, I'll try to fix it

Per #728 (comment), wouldn't the expected output here be

"One for , one for me."

?

@stkent I think there was a bit of a confusion. Yes, If we are going by the fact that an empty string is a valid name then the expected output you gave would be correct

@stkent, so, you want to see the following cases:

1. null --> "One for you, one for me."
2. "" --> "One for , one for me." (it looks strange to me)
3. "Bob" --> "One for Bob, one for me."
4. "Alice" --> "One for Alice, one for me."

right?

@m-a-ge correct, according to Katrina, that would be correct :) I would still place the empty string test last since it's a boundary case.

in that case, I have to update the code accordingly and clear the history for the last two commits.
It'll take some time

@Smarticles101, thanks!