Another conditional expression candidate (PEP 308)

[Evan]

Alan Daniels wrote:
> Am I missing something? The whole point of a ternary operator is to
> save you extra typing.

No.  If that were the whole point then the idea would have died long 
ago.  It's about clarity of expression.

> Also, I think this would also be VERY confusing to new users.
> This would be legal syntax:
> 
>     result = if cond: x else: y
> 
> But this...
> 
>     result = if cond:
>         x
>     else:
>         y
> 
> ...would be illegal

This is part of why I suggested mandatory parens.  Then both of these 
are legal, and there is no confusion:

result = (if cond: x else: y)

result = (if cond:
     x
else:
     y)

Cheers,

Evan @ 4-am