Vote on PEP 308: Ternary Operator

[Samuele Pedroni]

"Martijn Faassen" <m.faassen at vet.uu.nl> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:b3tteo$9ti$1 at newshost.accu.uu.nl...
> > 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..)
>

the votes can be easely intepreted this way:

X reject; Y reject; Z reject

means

prefer NO-CHANGE over X which is preferred over Y which is preferred over Z
... over anything else

X accept; Y reject; Z reject

prefer X over NO-CHANGE over Y over Z over anything else

X accept; Y accept; Y reject

prefer X over Y over NO-CHANGE over Z over anything else

The problematic kind of vote is:

X accept; Y accept; Z accept

because you can't infer their opinion wrt  WEIRD different from X,Y,Z and
NO-CHANGE. Do they want a ternary so badly such that WEIRD is preferred over
NO-CHANGE?