[KirinDave]

It might be in Python, but it's sorta oranges to apples for you to just not do the same thing your Rosetta code is supposed to do.

What's the value of your exercise if you just redefine the problem to get rid of the tricky part?

[icedchai]

I’d say the original code was wrong. anyway catching an exception isn’t tricky.

[KirinDave]

If it's easy then why did you fail twice at even making a valid python expression?

When we talk about the oppressive nature of Python culture—how the "there is only one way to do it" culture leaks out of the place where it's applicable and starts to be focused on other communities that have different requirements—we think of examples like this. "Your code in a language I don't now or use is wrong."

Over focusing on how the example code polls the environment is the least interesting thing you could hyperfocus on. What's more, I think it's a bit more normal to use something like optparse-applicative, which leads to inevitable complaints about using infix operators that every Haskell novice knows but that armchair Haskell programmers hem and haw about asking, "is this too many operators?"

[icedchai]

I only answered once. The other code was from another guy.

[KirinDave]

Okay, my apologies. I accept the correction.

Do you want to respond to the rest or just let it stand?

[icedchai]

I'm going to take another look at Haskell first.