PEP-308 a "simplicity-first" alternative

[Christian Tanzer]

Andrew Koenig <ark at research.att.com> wrote:

> holger> Inspired by "do the simplest thing that can possibly work" i
> holger> now think that
>
> holger>         x and y else z
>
> holger> might just do it and avoid the need for a new construct.
>
> I thought so too when I first saw it, but now I'm less sure.
> For example, what is the meaning of
>
>         w and x and y else z
>
>         w and x and y else z else a
>
>         (x and y) else z

Ooops. For the first expression I'd expected:

    (w and x) and y else z

That fails miserably for the second, though. And both declaring it
illegally or trying to interpret it as

    w and (x and y else z) else a

don't appeal to me at all.

Glad-not-to-be-a-language-designer-ly yrs,

-- 
Christian Tanzer                                         tanzer at swing.co.at
Glasauergasse 32                                       Tel: +43 1 876 62 36
A-1130 Vienna, Austria                                 Fax: +43 1 877 66 92