PEP308: Yet another syntax proposal
eppstein at ics.uci.edu
Tue Feb 11 01:43:20 CET 2003
On 2/11/03 1:16 AM +0100 holger krekel <pyth at devel.trillke.net> wrote:
> a) would you have reimplemented it with PEP-308 syntax?
Only to prove a point, or as part of a larger pass of simplification
through the code.
However, had PEP-308 syntax been available I would likely have used it for
this code when I originally wrote it.
> b) it doesn't exactly disprove my point that ternary operators
> can often be avoided for great justice :-)
True...but I think that's just a very special case of a larger theorem that
a lot of code complexity can often be avoided with a little more programmer
David Eppstein UC Irvine Dept. of Information & Computer Science
eppstein at ics.uci.edu http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/
More information about the Python-list