On Thu, 2005-01-13 at 08:39 +0000, Antoon Pardon wrote: > > At best it would offer new paradigms for existing constructs (violating > > the "there should be one obvious way to do it" zen); at worst it would > > obfuscate the whole language. > > That zen is already broken. Look at the number of answers one gets > if a newbee askes for a ternary operator. I think that a simple > ternary operator or macro's with an official supported macro that > implemented the ternary operator would have been far closer to > the spirit of only having one obvious way than what we have now.
And then we have iteration .... (generator expressions, list comprehensions, for loops, ...?) over (sequences, iterators, generators) I happen to be extremely fond of the flexibility this provides, but one obvious way to do it there is not. -- Craig Ringer -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
