That’s just because you’re used to it. The pythonic ternary is structured like spoken language, which makes it easier to read, especially if you nest them.
Is there an objective argument for the conventional ternary, other than „That’s how we’ve always done it!“?
I don’t read spoken language, but I do read written ones. The problem with python’s ternary is that it puts the condition in the middle, which means you have to visually parse the whole if-block just to see where the condition starts. Which makes it hard to read for anything but the most trivial examples.
That’s just because you’re used to it. The pythonic ternary is structured like spoken language, which makes it easier to read, especially if you nest them.
Is there an objective argument for the conventional ternary, other than „That’s how we’ve always done it!“?
I don’t read spoken language, but I do read written ones. The problem with python’s ternary is that it puts the condition in the middle, which means you have to visually parse the whole if-block just to see where the condition starts. Which makes it hard to read for anything but the most trivial examples.
The same goes for comprehensions and generators
The conventional ternary is structured like a normal if-else. In fact, in many languages with functional influence, they’re the same thing.
For example, you can write this in Rust: