Antoon Pardon wrote: > No it wasn't. From what I have picked up, the ternary operator > was finaly introduced after one of the developers tripped over > the commonly used idiom to simulate a ternary operator, which > can fail in certain cases.
> > Anyway, when I was arguing for a ternary operator in python, > those who opposed me, certainly gave me the impression that > they thought I wanted to mangle the language, the mere idea > of a ternary operator was against the spirit of python. > > When I argued for a more general loop construct similar > objections were made and the proposal was fiercely fought. > Someone even started a PEP, with the intention to bury > the idea. (That can be from before I argued for it) > > Now I have read about both that they will be introduced in > Python 2.5 without a whisper of protest. Protesting BDFL is absolutely useless by definition even if you disagree. Tim Peters wanted generators for 10 years <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2001-June/050146.html> and he has much more power of convincing Guido than you. Why do you think your proposal should be immediately accepted? By the way, I don't see the features you mentioned neither in <http://svn.python.org/view/python/trunk/Doc/whatsnew/whatsnew25.tex?rev=39802&view=auto> nor among PEPs. Perhaps they are not final? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
