Voting for PEP 308 (was Re: For review: PEP 308 - If-then-else expression)

[Aahz]

In article <mailman.1044653534.2451.python-list at python.org>,
Dave Brueck  <dave at pythonapocrypha.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 7 Feb 2003, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>>
>>     The proposed syntax is as follows:
>>
>>         <expression1> if <condition> else <expression2>
>
>+1 (and I vote Aahz to be the tally-person)

Well, I'm certainly flattered.  I should note formally for the record
that I'm opposed to PEP 308, but I think I've cultivated a sufficient
record for honesty that it shouldn't matter.  If other people want me to
do this, here's how I plan to run the vote:

The vote would run in two stages:

* The first stage would simply be in favor or opposing the idea of a
ternary operator.  It would require a minimum of 2/3 or 3/4 supermajority
to advance to the next stage.  If this stage fails, Guido's threat to
forever withhold ternary conditionals takes place.

* The second stage would be voting on particular forms of the ternary
operator.  It would take place a minimum of one month after the first
vote to give people time to brainstorm.  This vote is a bit trickier to
handle; I think the best way to manage it is that anyone who casts a
"wet blanket" vote (-1 on all options) has zir vote counted as only half
a vote.  If no options get a supermajority, the acceptance of PEP 308 is
deferred for a minimum of one year.  If multiple options get the
supermajority, we'd have a runoff vote using Condorcet.

The e-mail address of all voters will be publicized, along with the vote
cast.  (Just like Usenet voting.)
-- 
Aahz (aahz at pythoncraft.com)           <*>         http://www.pythoncraft.com/

Register for PyCon now!  http://www.python.org/pycon/reg.html