Vote on PEP 308: Ternary Operator

[James Kew]

Raymond Hettinger wrote:

> Note, the examples are required but will not be used.
> Try to get them right, but it is okay if they are wrong.

If they're not used, and can be wrong, what on *earth* are they for?

It seems to me this serves no good purpose except making voting more
difficult than it needs to be -- particularly for "no to any form of
ternary" voters.

My apologies if this has already been well-discussed, I did not have the
stamina to follow the PEP308 threads after the first few days of discussion.
But I really did expect voting to be simpler and more direct than this!

--
James Kew
james.kew at btinternet.com