PEP-308 a "simplicity-first" alternative

[Tim Hochberg]

Terry Reedy wrote:
> "Erik Max Francis" <max at alcyone.com> wrote in message
> news:3E49CA83.8C3B8A28 at alcyone.com...
> 
>>Terry Reedy wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message
>>>news:7xr8aenyj1.fsf at ruckus.brouhaha.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>I intensely dislike "x and y else z".  "Explicit is better than
>>>>implicit" to me specifically means avoiding this type of cutesy
>>>>overloading.
>>>
>>>Do you intensely dislike it more or less than the current idiom "x
> 
> and
> 
>>>y or z"?
>>
>>We can't vote that one down,
> 
> 
> Yes and no.  You can, in effect, vote it down by voting for a
> replacement that current users of the idiom will switch to.
> 
> 
>>so whether he likes it more or less than a
>>broken idiom some people use anyway is really beside the point.
> 
> 
> On the contrary, as Paul also said in his response, the question is
> whether to replace the current idiom or let it stand.  So preference
> between the status quo and a proposed new situation is exactly to the
> point.  A choice between the two is exactly what people will be voting
> on.


On the contrary, the question is whether to replace the current idiom 
_with_new_syntax_. Not adopting new syntax does not stand in the way of 
declaring the and/or idiom to be bad form and standardizing on a new 
idiom or idioms. The resulting idioms may not be to your liking (too 
verbose perhaps), but the above is a false choice.

-tim

(or would that be idia?)