Defending the ternary operator

[Erik Max Francis]

Alexander Schmolck wrote:

> True. Still, that doesn't mean that allowing further grammatically
> distinct
> "if"s wouldn't have a negative impact. The list comprehension "if" at
> least is
> quite limited: there is no "else" part, you can't chain it and it
> occurs in a
> fairly narrow context. Introducing an "if" expression would almost
> certainly
> increase the impact:
> 
> if ...:
>   y = [i if ... else ... for i if i ...] if  ... else ...

Yep, language features can be abused.  That's true for any language
feature in any language.  I don't find it a compelling argument,
especially in this case where the construct being proposed has the
opportunity make code _more_ clear and concise when used properly, not
less.

-- 
 Erik Max Francis / max at alcyone.com / http://www.alcyone.com/max/
 __ San Jose, CA, USA / 37 20 N 121 53 W / &tSftDotIotE
/  \ Lawyers, I suppose, were children once.
\__/ Charles Lamb
    The laws list / http://www.alcyone.com/max/physics/laws/
 Laws, rules, principles, effects, paradoxes, etc. in physics.