Mike Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > As in, say, calling > > x = ternary(c, lambda:t, lambda:f) > > ? The 'lambda:' is a (not nice-looking, but...) "indication of > > non-evaluation"... or am I misundertanding what you're saying? > > No, you're saying it exactly right. And that does, indeed, do the > trick. Just a bit ugly is all.
Yeah, there's a PEP to provide alternate, less-ugly syntax sugar for this specific use of lambda, but I don't think it stands any chance of passing. Alex -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
