Voting for PEP 308 (was Re: For review: PEP 308 - If-then-else expression)

[Erik Max Francis]

Aahz wrote:

> Well, I'm certainly flattered.  I should note formally for the record
> that I'm opposed to PEP 308, but I think I've cultivated a sufficient
> record for honesty that it shouldn't matter.  If other people want me
> to
> do this, here's how I plan to run the vote:
> 
> The vote would run in two stages:
> 
> * The first stage would simply be in favor or opposing the idea of a
> ternary operator.  It would require a minimum of 2/3 or 3/4
> supermajority
> to advance to the next stage. ...
> 
> * The second stage would be voting on particular forms of the ternary
> operator. ...

Uh, why the two stages with the absolute block in the middle?  Why
wouldn't it be the reverse -- a vote of people who _want_ one, rather
than people who don't want one?  If a positive vote pass, it would be a
clear indicator that the community is in favor of such a thing; you seem
to be taking the reverse approach, and are looking for ways to shoot the
proposal down.

Is it because you're opposed to the PEP?

-- 
 Erik Max Francis / max at alcyone.com / http://www.alcyone.com/max/
 __ San Jose, CA, USA / 37 20 N 121 53 W / &tSftDotIotE
/  \ Men live by forgetting -- women live on memories.
\__/ T.S. Eliot
    REALpolitik / http://www.realpolitik.com/
 Get your own customized newsfeed online in realtime ... for free!