Vote on PEP 308: Ternary Operator

[holger krekel]

Martijn Faassen wrote:
> Donn Cave <donn at drizzle.com> wrote:
> > Quoth m.faassen at vet.uu.nl (Martijn Faassen):
> > ...
> > | Laura, please help those of us who do not particularly want a 
> > | ternary operator in Python and do not want to be educated in that
> > | respect, and still want to put in a vote if only they could figure
> > | out a sensible way to do so.
> > 
> > Here's how mine looks:
> > 
> >  X reject (whatever)
> >  Y reject (whatever)
> >  Z reject (whatever)
> >  Donn Cave
> >  N/A
> >  N/A
> >  N/A
> >  N/A
> >  N/A
> > 
> > Do you see any ambiguity?
> 
> No.
> 
> I do however see a lot of work being done on something that ought to be 
> simple. So everyone who doesn't wants no ternary operator and has no
> opinion on the ones offered for consideration has to figure out
> somehow that this is the way to vote? Seems rather discouraging to me.
> The whole procedure seems set up to get a tally on which is the
> better solution, not on whether we need a solution at all, and it's
> positive discouraging to actually figure out how to vote for that.
> (rejecting the ones you like best is still pretty weird to me.. or
> rejecting non existent entries..)
>  
> > I'd be more concerned that no one is paying attention by now.
> > The debate over which solution is better for this non-problem
> > has been so thoroughly uninteresting that some have probably
> > explicitly filtered it, along with one or two of the most
> > prolific posters, and the rest of us have gotten used to seeing
> > "PEP 308" as background noise.
> 
> Yes, that's likely the case. This one only caught me by coincidence
> and also because I'd been watching out for an actual start of voting,
> but not everybody will do this. And of course the newsgroup is already
> a very self selecting audience (but that's who Guido consulted).

I think Martijn raised some serious points.  

The vote announcment  should indeed contain *no* literal PEP.*308 
especially not in the subject line.  Like others, i only noticed 
it by coincident (having hit CTRL-D already).  

And the vote absolutely needs a clean, obvious simple 
"no ternary needed" choice.  

the vote-announcement should be re-posted with these two bugs
fixed. easy enough. 

    holger