From fa6660b886ac9b41dc7ecfcbdad4e442e19bf8f6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Guido van Rossum Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 15:01:53 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] Avoid 'I' now there's more than one author. Other minor nits. --- pep-0308.txt | 11 ++++++----- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/pep-0308.txt b/pep-0308.txt index ac0815a8f..599147758 100644 --- a/pep-0308.txt +++ b/pep-0308.txt @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ PEP: 308 Title: If-then-else expression Version: $Revision$ Last-Modified: $Date$ -Author: Guido van Rossum and Raymond D. Hettinger +Author: Guido van Rossum, Raymond D. Hettinger Status: Draft Type: Standards Track Content-Type: text/plain @@ -18,9 +18,10 @@ Introduction 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. + again. While the BDFL is co-author of this PEP, he is neither in + favor nor against this proposal; it is up to the community to + decide. If the community can't decide, the BDFL will reject the + PEP. After unprecedented community response (very good arguments were made both pro and con) this PEP has been revised with the help of @@ -211,7 +212,7 @@ Short-Circuit Behavior 3. split() is only valid for strings and readlines() is only valid for file objects. - Supporters of a cond() function point-out that the need for + Supporters of a cond() function point out that the need for short-circuit evaluation is rare. Scanning through existing code directories, they found that if/else did not occur often; and of those only a few contained expressions that could be helped by