[Chris Angelico firstname.lastname@example.org]
... I don't understand why people bring up all these arguments that have absolutely nothing to do with the proposal at hand. None of this has in any way changed.
That's easy: any time there's a long thread to which Guido has contributed at least twice, it will be seen as a Golden Opportunity to re-litigate every decision that's ever been made ;-)
Some amount of that seems healthy to me (people are thinking about "language design" from a larger view than the proposal du jour). In this specific case, line-oriented coverage tools have missed accounting for all possible code paths since day #1; e.g.,
x = f() or g()
You don't need to reply to messages so obviously irrelevant to the PEP unless you want to. It's not like Guido will read them and go "oh! a binding expression in a ternary conditional is a fundamentally new potential problem for a line-oriented coverage tool! that's fatal" ;-)