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

[Paul Rubin]

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 second stage would be voting on particular forms of the ternary
> operator.  It would take place a minimum of one month after the first
> vote to give people time to brainstorm.  This vote is a bit trickier to
> handle; I think the best way to manage it is that anyone who casts a
> "wet blanket" vote (-1 on all options) has zir vote counted as only half
> a vote.  If no options get a supermajority, the acceptance of PEP 308 is
> deferred for a minimum of one year.  If multiple options get the
> supermajority, we'd have a runoff vote using Condorcet.

I guess this is reasonable.