Steve Holden wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Mike Meyer wrote: > [...] > > > >>By the results of the vote, most people wanted ternary. The use > >>cases for it are well know. From what I recall, the debate was over > >>which of the many proposals should be adopted. > > > > That is not the impression I get on here. The impression I get lately > > is "ternary" is bad, is hard to read, can always be done "better" with > > if then else statement. > > > Well I personally believe the main reason Guido resisted the > introduction of the ternary operator for so long is precisely because he > knows it will be "abused" (by which I mean "used when its use will make > a program's meaning less clear") to the detriment of program readability. > > Python's unusual virtue is its ability to make a programmer's intent > clear from a reading of the code, and Guido tends to be fiercely > protective of that characteristic. If it is expressed as this, there won't be long winding recurring threads about the same topic which usually go off-topic.
> I agree that sometimes those who shoot such proposals down in flames > might be more considerate of the feelings of the proposers, but life is > short and we are all imperfect. Well, no one is obliged to be considerate about other's feeling, that is a personal choice. But doing it the high handed way is usually counter-productive and never get the message across, which to me is a failure. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
