Python as Guido Intended

[bonono at gmail.com]

Steve Holden wrote:
> bonono at gmail.com wrote:
> > Mike Meyer wrote:
> [...]
> >
> >>By the results of the vote, most people wanted ternary. The use
> >>cases for it are well know. From what I recall, the debate was over
> >>which of the many proposals should be adopted.
> >
> > That is not the impression I get on here. The impression I get lately
> > is "ternary" is bad, is hard to read, can always be done "better" with
> > if then else statement.
> >
> Well I personally believe the main reason Guido resisted the
> introduction of the ternary operator for so long is precisely because he
> knows it will be "abused" (by which I mean "used when its use will make
> a program's meaning less clear") to the detriment of program readability.
>
> Python's unusual virtue is its ability to make a programmer's intent
> clear from a reading of the code, and Guido tends to be fiercely
> protective of that characteristic.
If it is expressed as this, there won't be long winding recurring
threads about the same topic which usually go off-topic.

> I agree that sometimes those who shoot such proposals down in flames
> might be more considerate of the feelings of the proposers, but life is
> short and we are all imperfect.
Well, no one is obliged to be considerate about other's feeling, that
is a personal choice. But doing it the high handed way is usually
counter-productive and never get the message across, which to me is a
failure.