|| ||email@example.com (Raymond Hettinger)|
|| ||Summary of PEP 308 Vote for a Ternary Operator|
|| ||10 Mar 2003 15:29:13 -0800|
The PEP 308 vote is summarized at:
Here are some of the highlights:
* 518 votes were received. Of these, 82 used a RejectAll
ballot and 436 used the original ballot.
* 363 had a preferred syntax they found acceptable while
155 found no acceptable syntax.
* For the second ranked syntax, the ratio dropped to
286:231 in favor of a change. This means that 77
people found only one syntax to be acceptable.
* For the third ranked syntax, the ratio dropped to
202:312. This indicates that over half of the voters
would prefer no change if they can't have one of
their first two choices.
* The highest ranked constructs were:
235 for (if C: x else: y)
206 for C ? x : y
* The 235 breaks down to 177 accepting and 58 rejecting.
If the RejectAll votes are attributed entirely to that
syntax, the ratio becomes 177 favoring to 140 opposing.
* The individual votes were highly expressive and are
* The write-in votes had more accepts than rejects but
had no clustering of syntax preferences.
* The downfall of all voting systems is not in the data
collection, rather it is in the way the rankings are
combined. I avoid this issue by not declaring a
winner. Instead, Guido is being given a straight
tally and a copy of all of the individual votes.
This works especially well because his vote outweighs
all of the others.
* Though the results lean towards accepting the PEP as
proposed, it is not decisive. Some of the no-change
votes included strong pleas. This will certainly be
* There were three or four ballots received after this
summary was prepared but before it was posted. I'll
include them for Guido in a separate email. Please
stop sending in new votes.
to post comments)