Op 2005-11-28, Serge Orlov schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 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?
I don't think that. I was just illustrating that using: "That is unpythonic" isn't really an argument, because things that were thought unpythonic before are now accepted as the pythonic way. > 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? There were people who annouced these features in this newsgroup for version 2.5 with a rather clear titles and those from the dev-list that frequent this newsgroup didn't protest. Among the PEP's I see that at least PEP 308 is accepted. So although it may not be implemented for version 2.5 a ternary operator is now an accepted as being pythonic. -- Antoon Pardon -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
