Vote on PEP 308: Ternary Operator

[Martijn Faassen]

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).

Regards,

Martijn
-- 
History of the 20th Century: WW1, WW2, WW3?
No, WWW -- Could we be going in the right direction?