Voting for PEP 308 (was Re: For review: PEP 308 - If-then-else expression)

[Laura Creighton]

> So just give him that.  Take the tally of people who want a conditional
> operator, hand that data to Guido; let _him_ interpret it how he wants
> to.  If he concludes that it warrants approval, then we can move on to
> the preferred syntax (which is a complex issue, since in a vacuum some
> choices might be preferred, but are declared unacceptable by fiat) --
> perhaps something of the form of "Here are n different possibilities for
> the syntax, choose one to three and rank them."
> 
> -- 
>  Erik Max Francis / max at alcyone.com / http://www.alcyone.com/max/

This is the logical order for people like you who want a ternary
conditional that they will take whatever they can get, however ugly.
The most important thing is getting it in, as long as it is not
unreadable.  It also is an order that suits the people who are opposed
at any price.  But it is hellish for the people who have a beauty
threshhold for any new language feature.  I don't suspect they are
a small number.  Indeed, I think that it is quite plausible for them
to hold the balance of votes (and power) in the election.  Like any
other 'third party' in a parliamentary procedure, why shouldn't they
hold out for concessions on the 'beautiful' front?  (Of course, it
may be that they are not the 'third party' but indeed one of the 
top two.  That wouldn't surprise me either.)

Laura