python-peps/pep-0308.txt

123 lines
4.1 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Normal View History

PEP: 308
Title: If-then-else expression
Version: $Revision$
Last-Modified: $Date$
Author: Guido van Rossum
Status: Active
Type: Standards Track
Content-Type: text/plain
Created: 7-Feb-2003
Post-History: 7-Feb-2003
Introduction
Requests for an if-then-else ("ternary") expression keep coming up
on comp.lang.python. This PEP contains a concrete proposal of a
fairly Pythonic syntax. This is the community's one chance: if
this PEP is approved with a clear majority, it will be implemented
in Python 2.4. If not, the PEP will be augmented with a summary
of the reasons for rejection and the subject better not come up
again. While I am the author of this PEP, I am neither in favor
nor against this proposal; it is up to the community to decide.
If the community can't decide, I'll reject the PEP.
Proposal
The proposed syntax is as follows:
<expression1> if <condition> else <expression2>
This is evaluated like this:
- First, <condition> is evaluated.
- If <condition> is true, <expression1> is evaluated and is the
result of the whole thing.
- If <condition> is false, <expression2> is evaluated and is the
result of the whole thing.
Note that at most one of <expression1> and <expression2> is
evaluated. This is called a "shortcut expression"; it is similar
to the way the second operand of 'and' / 'or' is only evaluated if
the first operand is true / false.
To disambiguate this in the context of other operators, the
"if...else" part in the middle acts like a left-associative binary
operator with a priority lower than that of "or", and higher than
that of "lambda".
Examples of how this works out:
x if C else y if D else z <==> x if C else (y if D else z)
x or y if C else z <==> (x or y) if C else z
x if C else y or z <==> x if C else (y or z)
lambda: x if C else y <==> lambda: (x if C else y)
x if C else lambda: y <==> SyntaxError
x if C else y, z <==> (x if C else y), z
x, y if C else z <==> x, (y if C else z)
Alternatives
Many C-derived languages use this syntax:
<condition> ? <expression1> : <expression2>
I reject this for several reasons: the colon already has many uses
in Python (even though it would actually not be ambiguous, because
the question mark requires a matching colon); for people not used
to C-derived language, it is hard to understand.
Eric Raymond proposed a variant that doesn't have this problem:
<condition> ? <expression1> ! <expression2>
While cute, this suffers from the Perlish problem of using
arbitrary punctuation with an arbitrary meaning; and it's no
easier to understand than the ?: form.
If we could live with adding a new keyword, we could use:
if <condition> then <expression1> else <expression2>
Apart from the problem of introducing a new keyword for a minor
feature, this also suffers from ambiguity at the start of a
statement; for example:
if verbose then sys.stdout.write("hello\n") else None
could be an syntactically correct expression statement, but starts
with 'if', which makes the parser believe it is the start of an
'if' statement. To resolve this, the syntax would have to require
parentheses, which makes it uglier. However, this form has the
advantage of evaluating strictly from left to right (not that that
is a requirement for being Pythonic -- list comprehensions don't).
Many people suggest adding a new builtin instead of extending the
syntax of the language, e.g.:
ifelse(condition, expression1, expression2)
This won't work the way a syntax extension will because both
expression1 and expression2 must be evaluated before the function
is called. There's no way to short-circuit the expression
evaluation.
Copyright
This document has been placed in the public domain.
Local Variables:
mode: indented-text
indent-tabs-mode: nil
sentence-end-double-space: t
fill-column: 70
End: