PEP-able? Expressional conditions
apardon at forel.vub.ac.be
Thu Sep 8 16:34:43 CEST 2005
Op 2005-09-08, Duncan Booth schreef <duncan.booth at invalid.invalid>:
> Antoon Pardon wrote:
>> Which is why I don't understand the resistance against introducing
>> such a beast.
> The idea has already been discussed to death. Read PEP 308 to see what was
> proposed, discussed, and why the PEP was eventually rejected:
So what? If the same procedure would have been followed concerning
the decorator syntax, it would have been rejected too for the same
>> Status: Rejected
>> Requests for an if-then-else ("ternary") expression keep coming up
>> on comp.lang.python. This PEP contains a concrete proposal of a
>> fairly Pythonic syntax. This is the community's one chance: if
>> this PEP is approved with a clear majority, it will be implemented
>> in Python 2.4. If not, the PEP will be augmented with a summary
>> of the reasons for rejection and the subject better not come up
>> again. While the BDFL is co-author of this PEP, he is neither in
>> favor nor against this proposal; it is up to the community to
>> decide. If the community can't decide, the BDFL will reject the
>> Following the discussion, a vote was held. While there was an
>> interest in having some form of if-then-else expressions, no one
>> format was able to draw majority support. Accordingly, the PEP was
>> rejected due to the lack of an overwhelming majority for change.
>> Also, a Python design principle has been to prefer the status quo
>> whenever there are doubts about which path to take.
IMO this is worded in a misleading way. It wasn't that there was lack
of an overwhelming majority for change. 436 supported at least one
of the options and only 82 rejected all options. So it seems 436 voters
out of 518 supported the introduction of a ternary operator.
Yes no format was able to draw majority support but that is hardly
suprising since there where 17 formats to choose from. I find
the fact that people were unable to choose one clear winner out
of 17 formats in one vote, being worded as: "lack of an overwhelming
majority for change" at the least not very accurate and probably
misleading or dishonest.
More information about the Python-list