anything new on the ternary operator?

[Tim Peters]

[Bob Gailer]
> Last I heard it was killed by Guido,

Confirmed (I asked him; he answered <wink>).

> which makes me wonder why we spent so much time discussing and voting.

If he had accepted it, people who were opposed to it may have wondered the
same thing.  IOW, the specific outcome doesn't appear to have anything to do
with the gist of what you're saying, here or below.

> If he did not want it I wish he had killed it at the start.

Likewise, if he did want it, I wish he had accepted it at the start.  But he
said at the start that he was neither opposed nor in favor, so neither form
of this conditional gets off the ground.

> I thought the vote was to determine the best choice, and I was looking
> forward to having it.

There were many creative interpretations of the vote counts, but none of
them showed the consensus Guido said at the start would be needed for
adoption.

> <grumble>Makes me wonder about the whole PEP process.

Voting isn't a normal part of the PEP process.  This was the second vote in
Python's history.  The first was to pick whether "i" or "j" would be used to
denote imaginary literals (another case where Guido had no preference).  The
"i" camp still complains about that one too <0.9j wink>.

> Why bother! </grumble>

For you with perfect hindsight, or for Guido with perfect foresight, there
wouldn't have been any point.  Given that the outcome wasn't known in
advance, there was some point at the time.