Ternary operator (Re: Ternery operator)

[Erik Max Francis]

Michael Geary wrote:

> I suppose this is all water under the bridge now, since the PEP stated
> that
> this was the community's one and only chance. I just can't help but
> think
> that the voting system guaranteed the outcome--but it's Guido's
> language and
> it was certainly his call to make.

I'm not sure any form of voting system would have changed the outcome. 
The wording of the introduction to the PEP suggested that the BDFL did
not want the language feature, and put it to the community to prove to
him unequivocally that a very large majority of people wanted the
feature and wanted the same form of the feature, leaving him no choice
but to admit that the desire for it was too strong to ignore.  I'm sure
he was well aware of the fact that that wasn't the case, but just wanted
to (in his mind) put the issue to bed.

As you say, it's his language, and it's most assuredly within his power
to do that.  I personally wanted a conditional operator, and I'm
disappointed that the PEP was rejected, but I'm not surprised.  (My only
specific complaint is that the decision came so many months after the
discussion and vote, and indirectly via a presentation at EuroPython,
but that's a separate issue.)

All I'll say beyond that is, if the goal of forcing a vote via a PEP
with the intent of closing the issue in the community, I think that's
wishful thinking.  People will still ask for conditional operators,
people will still resort to unreadable, broken compromises like `C and x
or y' and there will still be discussion on it in the future.  Mind you,
despite my favoring the PEP, I'm not suggesting that _that_ is a reason
to accept it; just that if one thinks that the issue won't come up over
and over again from the community in the future.

-- 
   Erik Max Francis && max at alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
 __ San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && &tSftDotIotE
/  \ There's this perfect girl / Living inside the shell
\__/  Lamya