Proposed PEP for a Conditional Expression

[Markus Schaber]

Hi,

Michael Chermside <mcherm at destiny.com> schrub:

>      def f(a,b=1):
>          x = a > 0: return a else return b
>          return x ** 2 - 1
> 
> Apparently Markus's syntax implies that after a colon appearing in a
> statement (as opposed to other, normal :'s in Python), the "return"
> keyword no longer means to return from a function.

Yes, but I wanted to always have brackets "()" around it (just as we 
have the [] around the list comprehension)

          x = (a > 0: return a else return b)

Currently, return and : both can't appear inside of (), and so it 
should be clear which return is meant.

> Markus... did I mis-interpret? Do you still think this is a useful
> syntax?

My objection to this would be that it is too much to type, and that's 
why I made a second proposal some lines later.

I'm rather shure that it is impossible to invent conditional expressios 
without redefining something or inventing new keywoards or symbols.

And in my case I define new meanings for :, else and (in the first 
proposal) return in a context where they are illegal now, so it 
shouldn't break any existing code.

markus

-- 
"The strength of the Constitution lies entirely in the determination of 
each citizen to defend it. Only if every single citizen feels duty 
bound to do his share in this defense are the constitutional rights 
secure." -- Albert Einstein