Attitude about new keywords

[Michele Simionato]

Peter Hansen <peter at engcorp.com> wrote in message news:<3E47E9D1.8B0A0986 at engcorp.com>...

> Just because the test in the list comprehension comes later is
> no reason to insist that it must come later in other cases.  
> Foolish consistency is ... oh, never mind.  Someone else already
> said that. :-)
> 
> -Peter

I am not saying it *should* come later, I am saying there is a precedent.
I can become accustomed to the reverse order in few minutes, doesn't 
seems to me to be such a disaster. YMMV, of course.
Anyway, my initial preference was for "when C then x else y" but this 
requires two new keywords and seems an improbable candidate, now.

There is a price to pay for the ternary, and I think many will not
want to pay that price.


                 Michele