PEP-308 a "simplicity-first" alternative
David Gausebeck
gausebec-spam at paypal.com
Tue Feb 11 23:32:34 EST 2003
More information about the Python-list mailing list
Tue Feb 11 23:32:34 EST 2003
- Previous message (by thread): Variations on implication
- Next message (by thread): PEP-308 a "simplicity-first" alternative
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
>Erik Max Francis <max at alcyone.com> writes: >> The `and' there doesn't really give you a clue as to what's going on >> (and, as someone else pointed out, what happens when this construct >> appears in an expression involving more `and' operators?). If you >> really want this, then `C then x else y' seems a far better way to do >> it, despite the flaw of adding an additional keyword. > >I don't remember ever seeing "then" as a variable name in any real >program, but if a keyword is so objectionable and ? is too C-like, >then another symbol (I favor "=>") can be used: C => x else y. I've seen it used a couple times for timestamps, though that was in C/C++. e.g. now = time(NULL); then = now - 86400; The idea of rejecting ? because it's too C-like just seems silly, though. It's already been used in another language, therefore it's necessarily bad? I can understand the objection that using punctuation in this case is too cryptic, but of the available punctuation, ? makes the most sense IMO, and it's not already used in python. -Dave
- Previous message (by thread): Variations on implication
- Next message (by thread): PEP-308 a "simplicity-first" alternative
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Python-list mailing list