Thanks so much! Please resolve this issue once you've fixed it.

I don't speak Haskell :( Is there a way to notify JohanWiltink who posted the Haskell Translation?

This is exactly what my solution does but in like all of the lines less. Great job! I wish I had thought of this.

I've fixed this problem. It's too bad this makes almost all if not all of the current solutions invalid.

I wasn't the one who made it. I just approved it because I saw nothing wrong with it. Is this mistake really egregious enough that I should delete the translation?

Oh. Duh. Thank you.

This is going to sound like a very stupid question, but I still cant figure out how the code stops itself. What's the condition on which a recursive call is not made?

Thanks for the feedback!

@awesomead

I think if I came back to this code in a year, it would probably take me a short time to figure out what it did, but after that I believe it would take a near equivalent amount of time to evaluate every part to determine what it does compared to your code. But that's just me.

@Blind4Basics

Considering you have this critique of a code I'd consider elegant and thorough, I'd love to hear your critique of my code. It'd probably be pages, but I'd truly be interested to hear what you have to say (other than renaming my variables).

Usually in loops I use x as an arbitrary, k as key, g as group, and v as value (dicts and groupers), s(t) as string, w as word, c as char, ln as line, etc. This is to say, going back over the code I would be able to read these variable names.

And usually, at the time when I'm writing my code, it seems like this is just the way it should be done, but when I look back the code looks clunky and barely readable.

I really like this. This is about 10,000x more elegant than my solution.

I never said that isinstance(True, int) was False, I just said that bool should be considered a separate primitive from int.

On that same note, (type(True) is not int) == True.

I stated in the description from the beginning, "Also, this array will only be able to hold items of type data_type." And type(True) is not int. Regardless of the fact that bool is a subclass of int. I didn't say "This array will only be able to hold instances of data_type." There's a big difference.

I even updated the description just for your persnickety ass (even though it wasn't wrong in the first place). Now will you kindly fuck off?

So you're saying that because I prefer to separate ints and bools for this kata, that makes it a java simulation? I don't follow. Also, Java syntax is different but similar, yes. I still don't know what you'd have me say in the description so that I'm not misleading anyone on what this kata is about.

It just makes so little sense to me that people are this upset that I'm separating bools and ints even though bool is a subclass of int. It's just peurile.

You didn't have to complete this kata. If you want me to be more 'honest,' you're gonna have to tell me how. I don't see how I misled anyone.