PEP 308: Alternative conditional operator forms

[David Gausebeck]

>>>I have no objection to "straw man" votes, so long as they do not end
>>>the debate.
>> 
>> I'm not familiar with that term in this context.  Did you mean "straw
>> poll"?
>
>Yes.
>
> From my experience many, many years ago on the ANSI X3J11 standards 
>committee, when discussing new features, the leaders called for non-binding 
>"straw votes" frequently to help move the discussion forward.  It's a way to 
>quickly table identifiable dead-ends and help pare down otherwise impossible 
>lists of alternatives.

What I'd be curious about at this point is how everyone breaks down
between:

1) I don't want conditional expressions added to python with any 
   syntax
2) I don't necessarily object to conditional expressions, but I don't
   like and wouldn't support any syntax proposed so far
3) I'm in support of PEP 308 as written, but I wouldn't support any of
   the other proposed syntaxes
4) I'd support PEP 308 as written, and I prefer it to any of the
   proposed alternatives, but I could support some of the alternatives
   as well
5) I would prefer one of the proposed alternate syntaxes to the
   original PEP, but if it comes down to just yes/no on PEP 308, I
   would vote yes
6) I would support one or more of the proposed alternate syntaxes, but
   not PEP 308 as written

This can be looked at in a few interesting ways:

1-2:  don't want anything suggested so far
3-4:  want PEP 308 as written
5-6:  want one of the alternate proposals

1-2,6:  would vote no on PEP 308 as written
3-5:    would vote yes on PEP 308 as written

1-3:  wouldn't support any of the alternate syntaxes
4-6:  would support at least one alternate syntax

However, starting a new poll whenever someone is curious is a good way
to drown out any useful information and dilute the chance of running
the polls that would really be useful.  But if others think this would
be a useful poll, go ahead and run it and I'd love to see the results.

-Dave