Inline Conditionals?

[Martin Maney]

Alex Martelli <aleaxit at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:
>> more readable and harder to get wrong, unlike your sparse example,
>> which has 'foo' on both branches of the conditional where you meant
>> 'foo' and 'bar'.

> ....as several people already noticed, proving the great readability of
> the sparse way of expressing oneself...

Amazing.  If a typo slips into something you dislike then you cite that
as proof of how bad it is.  When it happens to you while showing off
your preferred form, it becomes, by prestidigitation, proof of how good
that is.  Clearly this is determined by nothing at all like logic.

-- 
Their arguments, being based not in reason, are immune to it.