I very much appreciate Guido putting forward a PEP on if expressions, = but I must say the idea of letting c.l.p 'vote' on it is unwelcome. Voting = only makes sense when an electorate is educated enough to properly understand = the proposition and its consequences; the discussion so far makes clear that that isn't true. Programming languages need to be designed, not agglutinated. (Otherwise you get Perl and Fortran 2000 (:->) I think it is fair to say that being the head designer of a language can lead to frustration at times; I had to endure it on a much smaller scale = and it was very hard to keep patiently explaining how the features had to = fit together, and how they had to be both parseable and implementable and learnable, and that not every little difficulty is worth a language = feature. In the cases of several of the features adopted recently, a quick = inspection has initially led me to believe that the feature was not interesting but study showed that it was. I just don't think you can delegate this kind = of study to a group that is mostly inexperienced even at programming much = less language design.=20 I want my BDFL. As Davy Crockett said, "Be sure you're right, then go ahead." Paul Dubois
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4