Vote on PEP 308: Ternary Operator

[Nick Vargish]

First, thanks for taking on this difficult task -- you've just put a
huge target on your forehead... I've read ahead before replying, and
I think there are some serious problems with the ballot as proposed.

I believe the ballot should have a couple of places to vote before
we have to select or reject specific "styles". Like:

 0. Proposed: the addition of a short-circuiting ternary operator to Python
    [ ] In favor
    [ ] In favor with reservations
    [ ] Neutral
    [ ] Opposed with reservations
    [ ] Opposed

 0.b. Should the ternary operator be nestable?
    [ ] Yes
    [ ] Neutral
    [ ] No

 0.c. Must the conditional precede both consequents?
    [ ] Yes
    [ ] Neutral
    [ ] No

For myself, I'm neutral as to whether a ternary operator is
introduced, but I'm opposed unless the condition precedes the two
consequents. In other words, I oppose the form 'x if C else y' and
all variants.

I am okay with 'C then x else y' and variants.

I oppose all 'C ? x : y' variants, in that I don't believe complex
punctuation syntax is "pythonic".

It's confusing that I can list three syntax options, and either accept
or reject each. So, should I be a positivist, and vote in favor of all
the 'C then x else y' variants? Should I be negativist, and vote
against the forms I dislike?

Finally, I'm not sure that one week is enough time for everyone who
might have a valid opinion to chime in. For example, I was taking a
course last week, and fully participating in the decision process
would have been quite a bit more difficult if this call for votes had
come a week earlier.

Nick

-- 
# sigmask.py  ||  version 0.2  ||  2003-01-07  ||  Feed this to your Python.
print reduce(lambda x,y:x+chr(ord(y)-1),'Ojdl!Wbshjti!=obwAqbusjpu/ofu?','')