The ternary operator: more than one way to do it?

[Dave Brueck]

On Mon, 10 Mar 2003, Andrew Koenig wrote:

> Paul> The whole PEP 308 debate seems to reveal a secret desire in the
> Paul> community to have more than one way of doing the ternary
> Paul> operator thing - after all, there wouldn't have been so many
> Paul> creative suggestions if this were not so.
>
> I think the PEP 308 debate reveals a desire in the community
> to have more than _zero_ convenient ways of doing the ternary
> operator thing correctly (noting that at present, there is one
> convenient way of doing it incorrectly and several inconvenient
> ways of doing it correctly).

Well said. Thank you!

-Dave