anything new on the ternary operator?

[Erik Max Francis]

Aahz wrote:

> Guido made clear before the vote that only a clear statement from the
> community would drive the addition of the ternary operator.  Given
> that
> the vote did not present a clear result, he did what he said he'd do.
> How's that a prbolem?

Bob's phrasing of it was obviously overly confrontational, but I do find
it at least a little unfortunate that the final decision on PEP 308 only
came indirectly (meaning not as any form of widespread public
announcement, but rather as a side point in a presentation at a local
conference) and many months after the voting processes was resolved
(which was in February, if I recall correctly).

Even the PEP on the subject hasn't been updated, and only those who
attended his particular presentation in a particular conference have
found out this decision (which, of course, they communicated to us just
now).  (Mind you, after months of silence about the issue, it's not like
the decision should at all be a surprise to anyone.)

There isn't a problem that PEPs and such voting processes are worthless
-- obviously the BDFL has the final say -- but perhaps it would have
been a little nicer to get an official position on the subject earlier.

-- 
   Erik Max Francis && max at alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
 __ San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && &tSftDotIotE
/  \ I am a gentlemen:  I live by robbing the poor.
\__/  George Bernard Shaw