Ternary operator (Re: Ternery operator)

[Fernando Perez]

Michael Geary wrote:

> In retrospect, it seems obvious that the way the voting was conducted
> insured that no ternary operator would be added to the language.

Good point.  I, for one, was one of the people who would have been very happy to
see some form of ternary go in.  While I had my favorite, my biggest concern
was to have _some_ ternary, even if my favorite syntax didn't win (at least
amongst the most popular, which I felt were all fairly reasonable).  Oh well,
this will remain one of my few pet peeves with the language for the long haul
:)

Cheers,

f.