PEP 308: Alternative conditional operator forms

[Michele Simionato]

"James J. Besemer" wrote:
> 
> Michele Simionato wrote:
> 
> > Erik, thanks for offering your time to prepare the list.
> 
> Yes, thanks.
> 
> > However, I think we
> > should first make sure that there is a majority of Pythonistas favorable to
> > the introduction of the ternary operator.  There is no point in arguing
> > between us about the more pythonic solution if 80% of users are already
> > against the ternary operator.
> 
> I disagree in the strongest possible terms.
> 
> A majority might well vote against the PEP as stands today.  In the absence
> of the best possible syntax, voting NO might be the right answer.  But many
> people have indicated by their posts that they don't fully understand the
> concept.  Sheesh, 500+ emails into the discussion people were still
> indicating that they didn't 'get' that the construct short circuits, and thus
> cannot be defined as an ordinary function call.
> 
> Now (some 1500+ messages later) I sense that we've made some progress since
> Guidio's original post in narrowing the field of alternatives, and killing
> off some dead ends.  But we're far from consensus and seems there's plenty
> more to be discussed.
> 
> Anyway, per the PEP on PEPs, discussing and revising the PEP is a normal part
> of the process before voting ocurrs.  Building consensus is an express part
> of the process.
> 
> Thus I view motions to vote prematurely as an underhanded attempt to kill the
> proposal by bypassing the normal procedure.
> 
> There is no RUSH.  We have plenty of time to work this out.
> 
> Regards
> 
> --jb
> 
> --
> James J. Besemer                503-280-0838 voice
> 2727 NE Skidmore St.            503-280-0375 fax
> Portland, Oregon 97211-6557     mailto:jb at cascade-sys.com
>                                 http://cascade-sys.com


I did not want an official vote, I wanted a pre-screening, because I
fear there is
a large number of people who would say "no" to any proposal.

Of course, if the situation is (situation 1)

20% no 
60% maybe 
20% yes

then it is relevant to discuss a good new proposal such to convince that
60%.

However, if the situation is (situation 2)

60%  no
20% maybe
20% yes


then there is no point to spend weeks in trying to convince people who
have already
decided. I have no idea if we are in situation (1) or situation (2),
because of the 
"silent majority" that doesn't post. That's way I would like to see a
prescreening.

I hate the idea of spending the next week sending 100 postings to
convince people than
"when" is better than "if", if already the majority doesn't want the
ternary operator
in any form (and maybe this is the case; or maybe not, I don't know)


-- 
Michele Simionato - Dept. of Physics and Astronomy
210 Allen Hall Pittsburgh PA 15260 U.S.A.
Phone: 001-412-624-9041 Fax: 001-412-624-9163
Home-page: http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~micheles/