ternary operator vote --It's time.

Christos TZOTZIOY Georgiou DLNXPEGFQVEB at spammotel.com
Tue Feb 11 10:35:34 CET 2003


On 09 Feb 2003 14:16:26 -0800, rumours say that Paul Rubin
<phr-n2003b at NOSPAMnightsong.com> might have written:

>I am confident that Aahz will not cheat.  However, cheating is much
>different than (consciously or unconsciously) setting up the rules to
>favor one outcome.  That's why these things are best done by neutral
>parties.

(This is not a follow-up just to Paul's post, it's more general.)

I too don't believe that Aahz won't cheat.  Given that, in this specific
case of PEP 308, there is no way that he can consciously or
unconsciously set up the rules.  Remember, Guido said:

1. The syntax is that: "x if C else y"
He didn't ask for alternative suggestions.

1a. He rejected C-like syntax.

1b. He rejected "if C then x else y" for ambiguity.
There one can say that "if" is not necessary, and the "then" need not
become a keyword, but it's not the proposed syntax.

2. He talked about a "clear" majority, and he knows what he means.
If he didn't know at the time what he meant, I trust him that when it's
time he will know what he meant :)

2a. Aahz interpreted "clear majority" as "supermajority" but it was just
a guess on his part.  Anyway, he won't be the judge of what "clear"
means.  And it was honourable on his part (being con-PEP) to propose
postponing the final decision for a year if there wasn't a "clear"
outcome.

All we have to do is agree on the voting process, and then vote; Guido
said so, and he has the upper hand.

So I like the idea of Aahz tallying the votes.  Let's vote.  Aahz,
prepare yourself for heavy incoming fire ;-)
-- 
TZOTZIOY, I speak England very best,
Real email address: 'dHpvdEBzaWwtdGVjLmdy\n'.decode('base64')




More information about the Python-list mailing list