PEP 308: Pep Update

[Paul Moore]

"Steve Holden" <sholden at holdenweb.com> writes:

> "Sheila King" <usenet at thinkspot.net> wrote in message
> news:b3jgg4.gs.1 at kserver.org...
>> On Thu, 27 Feb 2003 00:06:21 -0600, "Norman Petry" <npetry1 at canada.com>
>> wrote
> [...]
>> >
>> > My vote on PEP 308 (if anyone cares) is:
>> >
>> >   +1 : x if C else y
>> >    0 : NO TERNARY
>> > -0.5 : (if C: x else: y)
>> >   -1 : ALL OTHER PROPOSALS
>> >
>> > Please reinstate "x if C else y" as the recommended syntax for PEP-308.
>>
>>
>> I really hate to do "me too" types of posts. However, as some people seem
>> to be keeping track of preferences and so forth by the posts on this topic
>> to the newsgroup, I feel that I had better agree "out loud" when I agree.
>>
>> Excellent, excellent, well written post. Wish I had written it.
>>
>
> Me too :-)
>
> Except that I don't want this new-fangled feature in the language at all, so
> I've been staying quiet. Someone has to organize the conferences.

After a brief initial flurry of interest in this topic, I decided that
there was too much heat and not enough light, and dropped out. I
intend to stay out, but I'd just like to add my support for Norman's
posting. It's very eloquent, and well thought out.

The only thing I differ over is the vote at the end. I, personally,
don't feel that a consitional operator is that important, and I loathe
the (if C: x else: y) syntax. So my votes would be something like

    +0.5 : No conditional operator
     0   : x if C else y
    -1   : Any other proposal

Paul.
-- 
This signature intentionally left blank