Steven D'Aprano <st...@remove-this-cybersource.com.au> wrote: > That's sheer and unadulterated nonsense. The fact is that Guido changed > his mind about ternary if after discovering that the work-around > > true-clause and condition or false-clause > > is buggy -- it gives the wrong answer if true-clause happens to be a > false value like [], 0 or None. If I recall correctly, the bug bit Guido > himself. > > The and-or hack, which was *very* common in Python code for many years > and many versions, follows the same pattern as ternary if: > > true-clause if condition else false-clause >
I guess you have worked hard to forget the and-or hack. It was actually: condition and true-clause or false-clause so its not quite the same pattern. Of course there's also the bug fixed version which I suspect was so ugly it was the real trigger for getting a real ternary operator: (condition and [true-clause] or [false-clause])[0] -- Duncan Booth http://kupuguy.blogspot.com -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
