PEP-able? Expressional conditions

[Duncan Booth]

Antoon Pardon wrote:

> Which is why I don't understand the resistance against introducing
> such a beast.

The idea has already been discussed to death. Read PEP 308 to see what was 
proposed, discussed, and why the PEP was eventually rejected:

http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0308.html:
> Status:  Rejected 
> ...
>     Requests for an if-then-else ("ternary") expression keep coming up
>     on comp.lang.python.  This PEP contains a concrete proposal of a
>     fairly Pythonic syntax.  This is the community's one chance: if
>     this PEP is approved with a clear majority, it will be implemented
>     in Python 2.4.  If not, the PEP will be augmented with a summary
>     of the reasons for rejection and the subject better not come up
>     again.  While the BDFL is co-author of this PEP, he is neither in
>     favor nor against this proposal; it is up to the community to
>     decide.  If the community can't decide, the BDFL will reject the
>     PEP.
> ...
>     Following the discussion, a vote was held.  While there was an
>     overall
>     interest in having some form of if-then-else expressions, no one
>     format was able to draw majority support.  Accordingly, the PEP was
>     rejected due to the lack of an overwhelming majority for change.
>     Also, a Python design principle has been to prefer the status quo
>     whenever there are doubts about which path to take.