On Fri, Feb 07, 2003, Guido van Rossum wrote: > > OK, I'll write a PEP (I doubt waiting for Eric is gonna pay off). > > But as skeptical as I am (see what I added to FAQ 4.16), I'll take it > for a vote on c.l.py and if it doesn't get a clear majority vote (and > it'll be up to the c.l.py folks to define what that is :-), it'll > remain rejected forever. Um. That's a tough bar, particularly given that some people are in favor of a ternary operator, but only if it has a "reasonable" syntax. I'm going to want separate votes for "should there be a ternary operator?" and "what syntax should it have?" If there's a clear majority for the first part, but not the second part, I'd like instead of being rejected forever, to be put on hold for a minimum of a year. That reasonable? -- Aahz (aahz@pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/ Register for PyCon now! http://www.python.org/pycon/reg.html
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