Another conditional expression candidate (PEP 308)

[Roy Smith]

I wrote: 
>> Why is the else: manditory?  Why not have it return None if none of
>> the
>> conditions are true?  It seems natural, and makes the syntax even more
>> like the current if statement.

Erik Max Francis <max at alcyone.com> wrote:
> Explicit is better than implicit.  After all, is "else: None" (or "else
> None" in the original PEP) _really_ too much to type?

If "else: pass" isn't required in the statement, why should "else: None" 
be required in the expression?