The function name is pretty misleading, since it looks like a constructor. Even if it's not a constructor, the functionality is pretty far away from the name you've chosen, so it's not a compelling API design either way. How would others use this function? How is this name self-documenting? The decision here is lacking consideration on all fronts.
Also, while I don't immediately recognize the exact language, the style looks off too. The function wetpaperbag is declared in all lowercase, but inside it's calling a function Quit that's capitalized? And, whether this particular language is camel-casing or snake-casing, it's clear that "wetpaperbag" isn't going to pass linting either way.
Overall, strong no hire. Next.
(/s... but only mostly, since the GP's point is that you actually can get a lot out of just asking simple interview questions, which I think we've helpfully proven out here)
The function name is pretty misleading, since it looks like a constructor. Even if it's not a constructor, the functionality is pretty far away from the name you've chosen, so it's not a compelling API design either way. How would others use this function? How is this name self-documenting? The decision here is lacking consideration on all fronts.
Also, while I don't immediately recognize the exact language, the style looks off too. The function wetpaperbag is declared in all lowercase, but inside it's calling a function Quit that's capitalized? And, whether this particular language is camel-casing or snake-casing, it's clear that "wetpaperbag" isn't going to pass linting either way.
Overall, strong no hire. Next.
(/s... but only mostly, since the GP's point is that you actually can get a lot out of just asking simple interview questions, which I think we've helpfully proven out here)