Re: Short if

Discussion in 'Python' started by ellisjb@my-deja.com, Jul 7, 2004.

  1. Guest

    Reading the voting results I don't see why this was rejected. The way
    I read it those in favor of some form of ternary operator seem to have
    well over 50% of the vote.
    , Jul 7, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Peter Hansen Guest

    wrote:

    > Reading the voting results I don't see why this was rejected. The way
    > I read it those in favor of some form of ternary operator seem to have
    > well over 50% of the vote.


    Answered at the top of the PEP, in the introduction:

    '''Following the discussion, a vote was held. While there was an
    overall interest in having some form of if-then-else expressions, no one
    format was able to draw majority support. Accordingly, the PEP was
    rejected due to the lack of an overwhelming majority for change.
    Also, a Python design principle has been to prefer the status quo
    whenever there are doubts about which path to take.'''

    Clear enough?

    -Peter
    Peter Hansen, Jul 7, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Op 2004-07-07, Peter Hansen schreef <>:
    > wrote:
    >
    >> Reading the voting results I don't see why this was rejected. The way
    >> I read it those in favor of some form of ternary operator seem to have
    >> well over 50% of the vote.

    >
    > Answered at the top of the PEP, in the introduction:
    >
    > '''Following the discussion, a vote was held. While there was an
    > overall interest in having some form of if-then-else expressions, no one
    > format was able to draw majority support. Accordingly, the PEP was
    > rejected due to the lack of an overwhelming majority for change.
    > Also, a Python design principle has been to prefer the status quo
    > whenever there are doubts about which path to take.'''


    > Clear enough?


    Not really. The question I have is whether the majority would
    prefer an if-then-else expression in an other format than
    there preference over not having an if-then-else expression.

    If so then rejecting this PEP was not due to the lack of
    an overwhelming majority for change.

    --
    Antoon Pardon
    Antoon Pardon, Jul 8, 2004
    #3
  4. Antoon Pardon wrote:

    > Op 2004-07-07, Peter Hansen schreef <>:
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Reading the voting results I don't see why this was rejected. The way
    >>> I read it those in favor of some form of ternary operator seem to have
    >>> well over 50% of the vote.

    >>
    >> Answered at the top of the PEP, in the introduction:

    [snip]
    >> Clear enough?

    >
    > Not really. The question I have is whether the majority would
    > prefer an if-then-else expression in an other format than
    > there preference over not having an if-then-else expression.
    >

    As I recall from discussions at the time there were a number of people who
    supported only specific forms of a ternary operator while being vehemently
    opposed to other forms (often because of a perceived lack of readability of
    competing options). Therefore those in favor of a ternary operator, while
    appearing to constitute a majority, are more acurately described as
    fragmented minorities. Hence, the (unfortunate) status quo.

    Steven Rumbalski
    Steven Rumbalski, Jul 9, 2004
    #4
  5. Op 2004-07-09, Steven Rumbalski schreef <>:
    > Antoon Pardon wrote:
    >
    >> Op 2004-07-07, Peter Hansen schreef <>:
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Reading the voting results I don't see why this was rejected. The way
    >>>> I read it those in favor of some form of ternary operator seem to have
    >>>> well over 50% of the vote.
    >>>
    >>> Answered at the top of the PEP, in the introduction:

    > [snip]
    >>> Clear enough?

    >>
    >> Not really. The question I have is whether the majority would
    >> prefer an if-then-else expression in an other format than
    >> there preference over not having an if-then-else expression.
    >>

    > As I recall from discussions at the time there were a number of people who
    > supported only specific forms of a ternary operator while being vehemently
    > opposed to other forms (often because of a perceived lack of readability of
    > competing options). Therefore those in favor of a ternary operator, while
    > appearing to constitute a majority, are more acurately described as
    > fragmented minorities. Hence, the (unfortunate) status quo.


    I see, thanks for the information.

    --
    Antoon Pardon
    Antoon Pardon, Jul 9, 2004
    #5
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Abbes Amira
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    423
    Abbes Amira
    Jun 27, 2004
  2. David Geering

    longs, long longs, short short long ints . . . huh?!

    David Geering, Jan 8, 2007, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    556
    Keith Thompson
    Jan 11, 2007
  3. Replies:
    4
    Views:
    816
    Kaz Kylheku
    Oct 17, 2006
  4. Ioannis Vranos

    unsigned short, short literals

    Ioannis Vranos, Mar 4, 2008, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    672
    Eric Sosman
    Mar 5, 2008
  5. Andre
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    534
    Keith Thompson
    Jul 17, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page