PEP 308: I liked the original proposal better
David Glass
nospam at nospam.ca
Fri Feb 14 02:22:04 EST 2003
More information about the Python-list mailing list
Fri Feb 14 02:22:04 EST 2003
- Previous message (by thread): PEP 308: I liked the original proposal better
- Next message (by thread): PEP 308: I liked the original proposal better
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Simon Wittber (Maptek) wrote: > Greg Ewing wrote: > > >>I'd like to put in a plea for re-instatement of the original proposal >> >> x if C else y >> >>which I found to be particularly elegant. > > > I have to agree. From my point of view this is the most pythonic > solution. > > Yes, the test is in the middle of the expression. The argument "This is > not > the way other languages do ternary expressions" is not a valid argument > against its use. Python is about about doing things the Right Way, not > the > common accepted way. > > This is what makes Python the great language it is. > > Although I am not sure any ternary operator is worth changing the language, I too believe the original proposal to be the most Pythonic and elegant. x if C else y doesn't stick out like (if C: x else: y) which, as a special case, requires parentheses. I appreciate the elsif capability in the revised PEP, but, the original form chains quite nicely to provide equivalent functionality.
- Previous message (by thread): PEP 308: I liked the original proposal better
- Next message (by thread): PEP 308: I liked the original proposal better
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Python-list mailing list