PEP 308: Alternative conditional operator forms

[Michele Simionato]

Erik Max Francis <max at alcyone.com> wrote in message news:<3E46F0CE.5675E180 at alcyone.com>...
> I'd like to build an exhaustive (or nearly so) of forms of the
> conditional operator that have been made so far that people have thought
> had _some_ merit (i.e., ones that were proposed and which someone other
> than the proponent indicated they thought might be a good idea), and
> those which Guido has not already absolutely dismissed (such as C ? x :
> y).  I'd like to do this both for my own edification in seeing them all
> in one place and for a potential second vote on the desired form (should
> the process get that far, of course).  (I'm also putting aside for the
> moment the issue of the introduction of new keywords or punctuation, or
> the appearance of chained conditional operators.)
> 

Erik, thanks for offering your time to prepare the list. However, I think we
should first make sure that there is a majority of Pythonistas favorable to 
the introduction of the ternary operator.  There is no point in arguing
between us about the more pythonic solution if 80% of users are already
against the ternary operator. I think there is a big majority not
posting on c.l.p that could be contrary to the innovation and don't
bother to sent verbose postings. I fear this majority could kill
us at the voting moment (and maybe Guido counts on that).

First, I would like to see how many are favorable (or not absolutely
contrary) and then I will vote for the choice of the proposal.


Cheers,

                    Michele