Vote on PEP 308: Ternary Operator

[Rod Haper]

Tim Peters wrote:
> [Martijn Faassen]
> 
>>...
>>Should I really need to figure out which of the options I
>>dislike *least* and then give examples of them? And then reject them?
>>Why do I need to put in all that effort when I just don't want
>>any of them?
> 
> 
> You could, e.g., vote for these:
> 
> E.  C ? x ! y
> F.  cond(C, x, y)
> O.  <if C then x else y>
> 
> IOW, vote for ones you know Guido wouldn't accept on his most feverish day.
> If everyone who wants no change did that, and there are a lot of them, Guido
> will conclude that the community is hopeless and give up in disgust <0.9
> wink>.


The thing that is missing from the voting procedure is an explicit way 
to vote for no change.  I guess if we could all read Guido's mind, your 
way might acheive the same effect but I would prefer that some explicit 
and unambiguous way to vote for no change (i.e., no ternary expression 
syntax addition) be built into the voting mechanism.  We've seen several 
methods illustrated in postings, but it isn't clear, at least to me, 
that any of them are assured to not be reject as invalid votes or if 
accepted as valid votes, that the intended effect is achieved.  My 
ballot was

[A-Q] reject (anything)
[A-Q] reject (anything)
[A-Q] reject (anything)
Rod Haper
Gack!
Gack!
Gack!
Gack!
Gack!

So, how about it Raymond and Laura?  Is my ballot a valid vote for no 
addition of a ternay expression syntax?  If not, what's the approved 
solution?

-- 
Rod

+----------------------------------+
|     There is a better way ...    |
|   LAP => Linux + Ada95 + Python  |
+----------------------------------+