FAQ
Aahz:

As you probably saw in a thread bearing your name, I took a
quick simple poll (of those still bothering to follow the
PEP 308 discussion). My reason for performing the poll was
that I was seeing so many syntaxes discussed that I thought
the key ideas were being burried in a wash of syntax options.

I had 19 people casting votes, with the following results:
(see
<http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2003-February/148907.html>
for interpretation of the syntax numbers):

Syntax # votes
11 12 x if C else y
14 10 C ? x : y
12 8 if C then x else y
13 8 if C: x else: y
18 7 C ?? x || y
22 6 C ? x else y
21 5 x when C else y

Syntax # votes Syntax # votes
16 3 15 1
23 2 17 1
24 2 26 1
25 2 27 1
28 2 31 1
38 2 34 1
39 2 36 1
40 1

You are welcome to do whatever you like with this information
(including ignoring it completely), bearing in mind that it is
not particularly . My own interpretation is simply that the
"x if C else y" syntax (Guido's original) and "C ? x : y" (C
syntax) both have a lot of support and should probably not be
ignored (though either could certainly be intentionally
*rejected*).

Anyway, good luck with setting up the vote... I hope it goes
smoothly. One final note: at the bottom of this email I have
included all comments I received. Again, feel free to use them
or ignore them as you like.

-- Michael Chermside

------------------------------------------------
I think reading left-to-right is very important.
------------------------------------------------
Please, include

ifelse(C, :x, :y)

- this form will be possible anyway if PEP 312 is to succeed ;-)
------------------------------------------------
- I don't think it's obviously way too many options, if we
go for some more or less approval-voting-like scheme.
It's too many to try to put a ranking on, but not too
many to say good/bad/indifferent to.

- I suspect that if you declare that such-and-such syntaxes
are too unpopular to be worth bothering with, then the
small minorities who like those syntaxes will be convinced
that you've rigged it. So doing this by private mail may
not work.

- I think the following are too weird to be worth taking
seriously, which is not the same as having too little
support to take them seriously:

16 (looks like a function but isn't one; nothing to
differentiate the three arguments at first glance)
18 (bizarrely ungrammatical, looks like a syntax error)

24 (looks like it's doing something very different to
what it's actually doing)
27 (angle brackets are, I'm afraid, just not remotely Pythonic)
28 (most of the drawbacks of the current and/or hack,
without the advantage of being able to work out
what it means from first principle)

31 ("@"? WTF?)
32 (might make sense for Forth aficionados, but I don't think
they're a large part of the Python community)
34 ("|" has a meaning already, and it ain't that)
36 (as 24; actually I like 36 a bit more than I like 24)
37 (confusing because it suggests that the relationship
between C and x is the same as that between x and y;
will confuse the hell out of people used to certain
functional languages, though that's no big deal)
38 (as 18)
40 (unbearable)

- my vote, in any case, is for leaving all the options on the ballot,
with the possible exception of ones that were never popular and
have been disowned even by their inventors.
------------------------------------------------
I hope the vote will permit preferences, this would avoid having to make
a choice between close preferences.
------------------------------------------------

Search Discussions

  • Aahz at Feb 22, 2003 at 3:10 am
    In article <mailman.1045880524.25231.python-list at python.org>,
    Michael Chermside wrote:
    As you probably saw in a thread bearing your name, I took a quick
    simple poll (of those still bothering to follow the PEP 308
    discussion). My reason for performing the poll was that I was seeing so
    many syntaxes discussed that I thought the key ideas were being burried
    in a wash of syntax options.
    Actually, I didn't see until you cc'd me on this in e-mail. I've been
    out of town for the fifth anniversary of my outlaw wedding, and I've
    only been slowly catching up.
    --
    Aahz (aahz at pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/

    Register for PyCon now! http://www.python.org/pycon/reg.html
  • Christos TZOTZIOY Georgiou at Feb 23, 2003 at 6:59 pm
    On 21 Feb 2003 22:10:26 -0500, rumours say that aahz at pythoncraft.com
    (Aahz) might have written:
    I've been
    out of town for the fifth anniversary of my outlaw wedding, and I've
    only been slowly catching up.
    Your 'outlaw' wedding is blessed; otherwise you would get flamed on
    Usenet :)

    (...unless I am mistaken in interpreting as humourous the 'outlaw'
    adjective...)
    --
    TZOTZIOY, I speak England very best,
    bofh at sil-tec.gr
    (I'm a postmaster luring spammers; please spam me!
    ...and my users won't ever see your messages again...)
  • Aahz at Feb 25, 2003 at 4:28 am
    In article <5e6i5vk853l7qrgcdg0tpj9oms2b3btu54 at 4ax.com>,
    Christos "TZOTZIOY" Georgiou wrote:
    On 21 Feb 2003 22:10:26 -0500, rumours say that aahz at pythoncraft.com
    (Aahz) might have written:
    I've been out of town for the fifth anniversary of my outlaw wedding,
    and I've only been slowly catching up.
    Your 'outlaw' wedding is blessed; otherwise you would get flamed on
    Usenet :)

    (...unless I am mistaken in interpreting as humourous the 'outlaw'
    adjective...)
    It's both humorous and serious: we had a full-blown wedding, but we
    neglected to inform the government.
    --
    Aahz (aahz at pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/

    Register for PyCon now! http://www.python.org/pycon/reg.html
  • Phil hunt at Feb 22, 2003 at 5:25 pm

    On Fri, 21 Feb 2003 21:24:48 -0500, Michael Chermside wrote:
    Aahz:

    As you probably saw in a thread bearing your name, I took a
    quick simple poll (of those still bothering to follow the
    PEP 308 discussion). My reason for performing the poll was
    that I was seeing so many syntaxes discussed that I thought
    the key ideas were being burried in a wash of syntax options.

    I had 19 people casting votes, with the following results:
    (see
    <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-list/2003-February/148907.html>
    for interpretation of the syntax numbers):

    Syntax # votes
    11 12 x if C else y
    14 10 C ? x : y
    12 8 if C then x else y
    13 8 if C: x else: y
    18 7 C ?? x || y
    22 6 C ? x else y
    21 5 x when C else y

    Syntax # votes Syntax # votes
    16 3 15 1
    23 2 17 1
    24 2 26 1
    25 2 27 1
    28 2 31 1
    38 2 34 1
    39 2 36 1
    40 1

    You are welcome to do whatever you like with this information
    (including ignoring it completely), bearing in mind that it is
    not particularly . My own interpretation is simply that the
    "x if C else y" syntax (Guido's original) and "C ? x : y" (C
    syntax) both have a lot of support and should probably not be
    ignored
    That's true.

    It's interesting to not that the options that came 3rd and 4th were
    very similar to each other (suggesting that people who support one
    would also support the other, and that under a preference voting
    system such as AV or Condorcet, both would do well), and also
    similar to the existing Python conditional notation.

    --
    *| Philip Hunt <philh at cabalamat.uklinux.net> |*|
    *| "Memes are a hoax; pass it on" |*|

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
Discussion Overview
grouppython-list @
categoriespython
postedFeb 22, '03 at 2:24a
activeFeb 25, '03 at 4:28a
posts5
users4
websitepython.org

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2022 Grokbase