Python as Guido Intended

[Serge Orlov]

Antoon Pardon wrote:
> No it wasn't. From what I have picked up, the ternary operator
> was finaly introduced after one of the developers tripped over
> the commonly used idiom to simulate a ternary operator, which
> can fail in certain cases.

>
> Anyway, when I was arguing for a ternary operator in python,
> those who opposed me, certainly gave me the impression that
> they thought I wanted to mangle the language, the mere idea
> of a ternary operator was against the spirit of python.
>
> When I argued for a more general loop construct similar
> objections were made and the proposal was fiercely fought.
> Someone even started a PEP, with the intention to bury
> the idea. (That can be from before I argued for it)
>
> Now I have read about both that they will be introduced in
> Python 2.5 without a whisper of protest.

Protesting BDFL is absolutely useless by definition even if you
disagree. Tim Peters wanted generators for 10 years
<http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2001-June/050146.html>
and he has much more power of convincing Guido than you. Why do you
think your proposal should be immediately accepted?

By the way, I don't see the features you mentioned neither in
<http://svn.python.org/view/python/trunk/Doc/whatsnew/whatsnew25.tex?rev=39802&view=auto>
nor among PEPs. Perhaps they are not final?