PEP 308: Pep Update

James J. Besemer jb at
Fri Feb 14 21:03:53 CET 2003

Andrew Dalke wrote:
> [Summary: I actually think that if the "if/else expression" is added to
> Python
> then the below example would be considered good style.  Two of the
> 4 people who responded, both pro-PEP 308, said it was a "misuse".
> I find that difference to be interesting.]

I did not mean to indicate that I thought it was an 'abuse'.

That is definitely NOT the case.

> Hmmm, I think I should have explained myself more.

Yes.  I am sorry but I completely misunderstood your posts on this question.

I thought YOU were complaining that it was 'abuse', to which I merely 
intended to offer that this particular abuse was merely a drop in the bucket.

But I submit that your posts on this question are easily misinterpreted.

ON 2/11 you first asked the question, concluding

	code which in the small looks like normal Python
	if/else statement is really an if/else expression?

	I don't like that.

So I concluded you objected to this style.

More recently you said "I never heard an answer", repeating "I don't like 
that".  This time I see you were more specific about wanting "2 variables". 
In my mind I saw it as a continuation of what I thought was your earlier 

> So if the if/else expression is added, I believe the above will
> be considered an appropriate solution -- nay, even a good one.
> It is clear, it shows where each term is placed, it allows for
> comments.  It would not be considered an abuse, and so I'm
> surprised that the last two comments thought it to be an abuse,
> especially since I said "I don't like it" and not "abuse." 

While in this case you did not explicitly use the word 'abuse', IMHO you 
established early on that virtually ANY "use" that was somehow redundant with 
some existing python form amounted to "abuse".  I could be wrong but IIRC you 
even used "I don't like to see" in some cases as a synonym for "abusive" 

Or else, perhaps you were trying to express a subtlety that was lost on me.

> (Perhaps
> you two by now automatically react negatively to anything I say?)

Although I disagree with much of what you say, I certainly hope it hasn't 
become automatic.

In all fairness to me, you have argued long, hard and rather loudly against 
any changes at all.  And you argued vigorously against most specific 
alternatives.   So I hope you'll forgive my oversight in this case of to me 
is a sudden and unexpected change of heart, particularly given the somewhat 
confusing sequence of posts.

If you find this form acceptable, then we're agreed.  It's not my favorite. 
I think Guido should have picked C's c?t:f 10 years ago.  But I think I have 
to agree that it's the most "Pythonic".

Welcome to the Dark Side.  ;o)



James J. Besemer		503-280-0838 voice
2727 NE Skidmore St.		503-280-0375 fax
Portland, Oregon 97211-6557	mailto:jb at	

More information about the Python-list mailing list