PEP 308 - suggestion for generalising the ternary operator

[Paul Rubin]

Erik Max Francis <max at alcyone.com> writes:
> > (cond:value, cond:value, cond:value, cond:value, default_value)
> > 
> > Or maybe:
> > 
> > (cond:value, cond:value, cond:value, cond:value, else:default_value)
> 
> My first reaction is that, as a general conditoinal form, that doesn't
> look so bad.

It's counterintuitive that the values aren't all evaluated like they
are in a dict expression.