308 as a special case of 312 (was: Re: Pep 312 value)

[Erik Max Francis]

jerf at compy.attbi.com wrote:

> On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 20:10:23 -0800, Erik Max Francis wrote:
> 
> > Yes, but you already have exactly this functionality, with lambda:
> > etc.
> 
> Same for the ternary operator.

No, it's not the same.  The functionality of a conditional operator is
possible in Python only with great awkwardness, defeating the purpose
for using a conditional operator in the first place.  PEP 312 merely
seeks to shorten a previously existing syntax by exactly one keyword.

> PEP 312 suggests the addition of a short-circuiting operator *in
> general*.

It's not short circuiting in the sense of implicit lazy evaluation. 
It's simply a shorthand for writing zero-argument lambdas.

-- 
 Erik Max Francis / max at alcyone.com / http://www.alcyone.com/max/
 __ San Jose, CA, USA / 37 20 N 121 53 W / &tSftDotIotE
/  \ Conversation is the enemy of good wine and food.
\__/ Alfred Hitchcock
    Physics reference / http://www.alcyone.com/max/reference/physics/
 A physics reference.