Perl's lack of 'in' keyword
paulm at paulm.com
Fri Oct 10 14:30:55 BST 2008
On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 2:03 PM, Zbigniew Lukasiak <zzbbyy at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 2:50 PM, Rafael Garcia-Suarez
> <rgarciasuarez at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 2008/10/10 Paul Makepeace <paulm at paulm.com>:
>>> Back to programming languages(!)
>>> Just as a different perspective, here is Python growing a ternary operator,
>>> i.e. how to get the same behavior as the C-like C ? A : B. There was
>>> considerable debate about this, with Guido eventually Making a Decision.
>>> What's interesting is that python gets ?: without any additional keywords,
>>> or... punctuation: http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0308/
>>> There's no moral judgment here, just thought it was an interesting aside
>>> from lies & nazism.
>> But isn't aesthetics the ultimate moral judgment for the centuries to come ?
>> And honestly, putting the condition in the middle just makes me want
>> to poke my eyes out with a snail fork.
> Hmm - it looks that there is some typo in that PEP, because later it
> is stated has the form of:
> (if <condition>: <expression1> else: <expression2>)
> So the condition is at the beginning.
That was one of the myriad suggestions for the syntax that was
ultimately rejected. The final choice was,
>>> 'perl' if 'punctuation good mmkay' else 'python'
> Zbigniew Lukasiak
More information about the london.pm