PEP 308: Alternative conditional operator forms

James J. Besemer jb at
Mon Feb 10 21:55:10 CET 2003

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.



James J. Besemer		503-280-0838 voice
2727 NE Skidmore St.		503-280-0375 fax
Portland, Oregon 97211-6557	mailto:jb at	

More information about the Python-list mailing list