Vote on PEP 308: Addenda

Raymond Hettinger

unread,

Mar 2, 2003, 6:26:05 PM3/2/03

to

Several people have requested a short-way
to express that they do not want any ternary operator.
Here it is:

Send a email to pep30...@hotmail.com
with a subject of PEP308:
Line 1: I reject all alternatives.
Line 2: <Your full name>

That is simple and is easily tabulated.
You may, of course, stick with the original procedure.

Raymond Hettinger

Jeremy Fincher

unread,

Mar 2, 2003, 10:17:57 PM3/2/03

to

"Raymond Hettinger" <vze4...@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<hqw8a.34881$x.1...@nwrdny01.gnilink.net>...

> Several people have requested a short-way
> to express that they do not want any ternary operator.

I want to express that I don't want a ternary operator, but if I get
stuck with one, I'd like to have some influence on what it is. If I
reject all syntaxes, but still rank my preferences (as in the original
vote format), will that seem any less forceful than using the short
way?

Jeremy

Raymond Hettinger

unread,

Mar 3, 2003, 12:11:17 AM3/3/03

to

"Jeremy Fincher" <tweed...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > Several

people have requested a short-way
> > to express that they do not want any ternary operator.
>
> I want to express that I don't want a ternary operator, but if I get
> stuck with one, I'd like to have some influence on what it is. If I
> reject all syntaxes, but still rank my preferences (as in the original
> vote format), will that seem any less forceful than using the short
> way?

No, rank ordering the preferences and then rejecting them is
still the clearest and most complete message you can send.

Raymond

Troy Melhase

unread,

Mar 5, 2003, 2:59:58 PM3/5/03

to

I sincerely hope Guido takes the fundamentally flawed nature of this voting
process into account when he makes his decision.

-troy

John Roth

unread,

Mar 5, 2003, 6:28:53 PM3/5/03

to

"Troy Melhase" <tr...@gci.net> wrote in message
news:v6clnll...@corp.supernews.com...

> I sincerely hope Guido takes the fundamentally flawed nature of this
voting
> process into account when he makes his decision.

I trust Guido on something like this, which is why I'm wondering
what all the fuss is about.

John Roth
>
> -troy
>

Erik Max Francis

unread,

Mar 5, 2003, 7:55:27 PM3/5/03

to

John Roth wrote:

> I trust Guido on something like this, which is why I'm wondering
> what all the fuss is about.

Probably the principle that if something's worth doing, it's worth doing
_right_.

--
Erik Max Francis / m...@alcyone.com / http://www.alcyone.com/max/
__ San Jose, CA, USA / 37 20 N 121 53 W / &tSftDotIotE
/ \ The basis of optimism is sheer terror.
\__/ Oscar Wilde
HardScience.info / http://www.hardscience.info/
The best hard science Web sites that the Web has to offer.

Gareth McCaughan

unread,

Mar 5, 2003, 5:51:27 PM3/5/03

to

Troy Melhase wrote:
> I sincerely hope Guido takes the fundamentally flawed nature of this voting
> process into account when he makes his decision.

All voting processes are fundamentally flawed. That's Arrow's theorem.

--
Gareth McCaughan Gareth.M...@pobox.com
.sig under construc

Norman Petry

unread,

Mar 5, 2003, 9:14:56 PM3/5/03

to

On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 16:51, Gareth McCaughan wrote:
> Troy Melhase wrote:
> > I sincerely hope Guido takes the fundamentally flawed nature of this voting
> > process into account when he makes his decision.
>
> All voting processes are fundamentally flawed. That's Arrow's theorem.
>

Perhaps, but not *equally* flawed. See:

http://electionmethods.org/Arrow.html

N.

Gareth McCaughan

unread,

Mar 6, 2003, 4:59:49 AM3/6/03

to

Norman Petry wrote:

Quite true. And, for what it's worth, I think your choice
of voting process is better than the "official" one, and
I think a modified Alternative Vote would have been even
better. But they're all fundamentally flawed. :-)

Martin Maney

unread,

Mar 6, 2003, 7:59:56 PM3/6/03

to

Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> wrote:
> John Roth wrote:
>
>> I trust Guido on something like this, which is why I'm wondering
>> what all the fuss is about.
>
> Probably the principle that if something's worth doing, it's worth doing
> _right_.

Well, I can agree with that principle - which is why I've been on
vacation from this absurd brouhaha for a while. I'm happy to say that
I've been too busy to argue about how to vote on the method for a vote
that's just an overhyped popularity contest to pay any attention to it.
I've even put some of the time I saved into actually working on using
Python to do what needs doing. Other bits have, alas, been squandered
on shovelling snow.

It's been very nice - reminded me of why I fell into this time sink in
the first place. I'm afraid it's also why I will likely be dropping it
from the news spool eventually. Talking about my favorite langauge is
a wonderful, thoroughly enjoyable pastime, but ultimately I enjoy
getting work done even more.

Now if I can just pull myself away.... must resist... undertow...

<glub>

Have fun storming the windmill!