PEP-308 a "simplicity-first" alternative

[Erik Max Francis]

Paul Paterson wrote:
> 
> "Christian Tismer" <tismer at tismer.com> wrote in message
> news:mailman.1045015194.30601.python-list at python.org...
> >
> > Anyway, please show me any other proposal that is
> > as minimalistic as this one. Please, stare at it
> > a little while and weight it's impact to the simplicity
> > of the language, readability, ease of impl, and getting
> > all these threads to a happy shut-down (or -up).
> 
> I still like the minimalism of,
> 
> x or y if C

Err, do you mean `x or y if C' or `y or x if C'?  When you first
suggested it (yes, it's in my list of unseconded proposals), you had it
the other way round (mind the wrap):

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=I5D1a.21943%24%25U2.1666127%40twister.austin.rr.com

This suffers exactly the same drawbacks as the `C and x else y'
proposition, as well as foisting a completely _different_ order of
evaluation than any other (as far as I can see) proposal.  `x if C else
y' was mainly contentious because it was not left-to-right or
right-to-left; this is similar neither (your original proposal seemed to
be suggesting the right-to-left form).

Is every permutation of the ordering going to be tride in one or another
of the proposals?  So far we've seen at least half of them.  :-)

-- 
 Erik Max Francis / max at alcyone.com / http://www.alcyone.com/max/
 __ San Jose, CA, USA / 37 20 N 121 53 W / &tSftDotIotE
/  \ Do not seek death.  Death will find you.
\__/ Dag Hammarskjold
    Esperanto reference / http://www.alcyone.com/max/lang/esperanto/
 An Esperanto reference for English speakers.