Ellery Newcomer wrote:
On 03/08/2010 08:49 PM, bearophile wrote:
Admitted, the last case does not work quite as nicely with ".." as it
does with Python's ":". Still, the point should be clear.
I have never understood why Walter has adopted .. for slices instead
of the better :
I'd like to know why.
Bye,
bearophile
Ternary ?:, I suppose.
Why not simply split up the ternary a?b:c into a nested expression
a?(b:c)
The binary ":" could simply be an expression that may only appear in
special contexts: on the right side of binary "?" expressions or within
indexing expressions.
