Voting for PEP 308

[Paul Moore]

Paul Rubin <phr-n2003b at NOSPAMnightsong.com> writes:

> aahz at pythoncraft.com (Aahz) writes:
>> The vote would run in two stages:
>> 
>> * The first stage would simply be in favor or opposing the idea of a
>> ternary operator.  It would require a minimum of 2/3 or 3/4 supermajority
>> to advance to the next stage.  If this stage fails, Guido's threat to
>> forever withhold ternary conditionals takes place.
>
> This vote should be on whether to have conditional expressions, rather
> than a "ternary operator".  In particular it should be open to
> expressions using keywords, n-way expressions, etc.  Also, a
> supermajority should not be required.  I'm not even convinced a simple
> majority should be required (list comprehensions never would have
> gotten one, and they are a good feature), but it's hard to call
> anything a "vote" if a minority can pass it.

The point about requiring a supermajority is that it leaves a gap in
which the procedure returns an "undecided" answer.

I think that any voting procedure on this topic which doesn't allow
for an "undecided" result is misleading at best, dishonest at worst.

Paul
-- 
This signature intentionally left blank