PEP 308: Alternative conditional operator forms

Erik Max Francis max at alcyone.com
Tue Feb 11 01:57:49 CET 2003


Robin Munn wrote:

> Almost, but not *quite*, what I wanted to suggest. I propose:
> 
>     (x if C else y)   # Parentheses are *required*
> 
> This is identical to the format proposed in PEP 308 with the exception
> that parentheses are required around the ternary expression.

The immediate reaction to this is that it doesn't seem fair in cases
like:

	f((x if C else y))

(without the doubled parentheses, it would be illegal).  If you want to
special-case that one, then the grammar gets more complicated and
eventually you start wondering why the parentheses should be required
anyway.

Use parentheses for clarity, sure.  _Require_ them, I don't see.

-- 
 Erik Max Francis / max at alcyone.com / http://www.alcyone.com/max/
 __ San Jose, CA, USA / 37 20 N 121 53 W / &tSftDotIotE
/  \ Whoever contends with the great sheds his own blood.
\__/ Sa'di
    Polly Wanna Cracka? / http://www.pollywannacracka.com/
 The Internet resource for interracial relationships.




More information about the Python-list mailing list