Summary of PEP 308 Vote for a Ternary Operator

Raymond Hettinger pep308vote at hotmail.com
Mon Mar 10 21:11:50 CET 2003


The PEP 308 vote is summarized at:
  http://tinyurl.com/763f

Here are some of the highlights:

* 518 votes were received.  Of these, 82 used a RejectAll
  ballot and 436 used the original ballot.

* 363 had a preferred syntax they found acceptable while
  155 found no acceptable syntax.

* For the second ranked syntax, the ratio dropped to
  286:231 in favor of a change.  This means that 77 
  people found only one syntax to be acceptable.

* For the third ranked syntax, the ratio dropped to
  202:312.  This indicates that over half of the voters
  would prefer no change if they can't have one of 
  their first two choices.

* The highest ranked constructs were:

  235 for        (if C: x else: y)
  206 for        C ? x : y 

* The 235 breaks down to 177 accepting and 58 rejecting.
  If the RejectAll votes are attributed entirely to that
  syntax, the ratio becomes 177 favoring to 140 opposing.

* The individual votes were highly expressive and are
  worth reviewing:  

  http://tinyurl.com/75z2
  http://tinyurl.com/75z3

* The write-in votes had more accepts than rejects but
  had no clustering of syntax preferences.

* The downfall of all voting systems is not in the data
  collection, rather it is in the way the rankings are
  combined.  I avoid this issue by not declaring a
  winner.  Instead, Guido is being given a straight
  tally and a copy of all of the individual votes.
  This works especially well because his vote outweighs
  all of the others.

* Though the results leans toward accepting the PEP as
  proposed, it is not decisive.  Some of the no-change
  votes included strong pleas.  This will certainly be
  a consideration.

* There were three or four ballots received after this
  summary was prepared but before it was posted.  I'll
  include them for Guido in a separate email.  Please
  stop sending in new votes.





More information about the Python-list mailing list