PEP-308 a "simplicity-first" alternative

[Erik Max Francis]

Bengt Richter wrote:

> This happens to fix the hole in old ternary idiom, but it is _not_
> introducing a new ternary form or other complex context-dependent
> stuff.
> If
>     (x and [y] or [b])[0]
> 
> is understandable, ...

It's "understandable," but it's not very readable, and it's hardly a
good substitute for a genuine bulitin conditional operator.  The whole
point of one is to increase readability; this _decreases_ readability
(as does the other form involving and/or and lambdas).

-- 
 Erik Max Francis / max at alcyone.com / http://www.alcyone.com/max/
 __ San Jose, CA, USA / 37 20 N 121 53 W / &tSftDotIotE
/  \ Will I disappoint my future / If I stay
\__/ Sade
    Bosskey.net: Return to Wolfenstein / http://www.bosskey.net/rtcw/
 A personal guide to Return to Castle Wolfenstein.