Summary of PEP 308 Vote for a Ternary Operator
Mike C. Fletcher
mcfletch at rogers.com
Tue Mar 11 04:59:34 CET 2003
I'd guess that many people who weren't interested in debating the issue
(and quite probably didn't want the "feature") didn't realise the
official vote was going on. I found out it had already started by
accidentally clicking on a message in the later thread that described
how to do an all-no vote (which luckily is what I wanted). (I had, like
most people, just been binning the hundreds of messages with Pep 308 in
the title, and never noticed the messages describing voting procedure in
The "complementary" vote thread had the advantage of coming somewhat
later, and really obviously describing an active/in-process vote. It
also had the advantage of not having a huge "what type of vote shall we
use" thread surrounding it's root post ;) . Of course, the... ahem...
involved voting process kept me from actually _voting_ in it ;) .
Oh well, hopefully Guido will reveal that the whole Pep 308 thing was
one of his wonderful April Fools tricks ;) . (Though it's not even close
to the whole Parrot thing as of yet. (There are still naive people who
believe there's a "Parrot Virtual Machine" going to come out for Python
and Perl (I think the people who are keeping that alive after all this
time are just sick ;) ))).
If not we'll have to foment another revolution :) ;) ,
Erik Max Francis wrote:
>Stephen Horne wrote:
>>Funny that this differs so much from the complimentary vote. Obviously
>>fewer people voted on that, but I'm wondering if there was some
>>self-selection biassing process going on in one or both votes (e.g.
>>maybe the no-change crowd care more on average, and were therefore
>>more willing to put time into a second vote).
>I suspect there is a strong selection effect taking place here; I know I
>didn't bother voting on the unofficial vote. It may well that people
>who were in favor of the PEP didn't bother voting in the second one
>simply because they felt that they had invested enough time selecting
>their favored forms in the first vote that it wasn't worth the effort to
>repeat it again, whereas more people against the PEP were willing to
>vote again because it required little effort and they felt so strongly.
>Who knows? But I'll bet some wise guy's solution to the discrepancy
>will be to suggest another vote.
Mike C. Fletcher
Designer, VR Plumber, Coder
More information about the Python-list