expression form of one-to-many dict?

[Alex Martelli]

Mike Meyer <mwm at mired.org> wrote:

> > As in, say, calling
> >     x = ternary(c, lambda:t, lambda:f)
> > ?  The 'lambda:' is a (not nice-looking, but...) "indication of
> > non-evaluation"... or am I misundertanding what you're saying?
> 
> No, you're saying it exactly right. And that does, indeed, do the
> trick. Just a bit ugly is all.

Yeah, there's a PEP to provide alternate, less-ugly syntax sugar for
this specific use of lambda, but I don't think it stands any chance of
passing.


Alex