Change:
# --description-- <del> You will be provided with an initial array (the first argument in the `destroyer` function), followed by one or more arguments. Remove all elements from the initial array that are of the same value as these arguments. </del> <ins> You will be provided with an initial array as the first argument to the `destroyer` function, followed by one or more arguments. Remove all elements from the initial array that are of the same value as these arguments. </ins> <del> **Note:** You have to use the `arguments` object. </del> <ins> The function must accept an indeterminate number of arguments, also known as a variadic function. You can access the additional arguments by adding a rest parameter to the function definition or using the `arguments` object. </ins> # --hints--

Discussion:
The instructions for the JS challenge Seek and Destroy clearly say "Note: You have to use the object." But yet you can pass this challenge without using the object by modifying the function to use a rest parameter to capture the additional arguments. In addition, there is also a solution in the hints that uses this exact technique. This code passes: Unless we have a specific reason for wanting the user to use the object, I think the rest parameter version is the more acceptable approach and we should be pushing that one, or at the least we should not be telling the user that they have to use the object if they really don't have to. The question is, how helpful do we want to be setting up the function? Do we want to add a rest parameter to the function definition? Or do we want to keep it as is (with just the argument) and then the note can say that you can use either the object or you can add a rest parameter to the arguments list? No response N/A No response
P.S. I just realized that maybe we aren't making updates to these JS challenges any more because we will be switching to the new format soon. If so, let me know and I'll close this.
I'd be good with either dropping the hint or saying that either arguments parameter or rest parameter is needed. I think I have a mild preference for the first. We are still making updates to these challenges, but only small updates.
Yeah, I think dropping the instruction is fine. Given that this is the intermediate algorithm section, we should be less concerned with the implementation and more concerned that it works. Since we test with variadic arguments, any implementation should be fine.
I think it's just meant as a hint and its age is why it only talks about the object. I'm not sure we can't have a hint and just call it that. I updated the hint page on the forum a bit.
I like the idea of changing the current note in the instructions to let them know that they can modify the function by adding a rest parameter. I would word it something like the following: My concern is that since we seed the function with only the argument, some people might not think they are allowed to add a rest parameter.
That works for me. I might suggest switching the order so the bit about the arguments object comes last (to give the rest parameter higher priority).

It does feel to me like the information can be integrated as part of the main challenge description and requirements without it needing a note section. But I guess I'm fine with either way.
I like that, yes.