On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 6:07 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 5:39 PM, comex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 7:16 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>> for (int i = 0; i < myevlod/2; i ++)
>>>>> {
>>>>> vote FOR;
>>>>> vote AGAINST;
>>>>> }
>>>>> vote PRESENT;
>>
>>> It seems clear enough too me.
>>
>> For one thing, Quazie's EVLOD is 5, right? Assuming we treat this as
>> pseudo-C, the result differs depending on whether "myevlod" is an int
>> (5/2 = 2; FOR AGAINST FOR AGAINST PRESENT) or a float (5.0/2 = 2.5;
>> FOR AGAINST FOR AGAINST FOR plus invalid votes of AGAINST and
>> PRESENT). Although Rule 2156 only allows EVLODs to be integers, if a
>> higher power Rule sets an EVLOD to something that is not an integer,
>> Rule 2156 will allow it to remain such (and it will be required to be
>> reported on) for the remainder of the week.
>>
>
>
> If the assessor deems it unclear that I wanted integer division, i can
> and will repost with an appropriate cast.
>
Actually, I think I'll leave it regardless. It seems like the first 4
votes aren't ambiguous, but the 5th might be. The potential ambiguity
of the 5th vote shouldn't make the first 4 ambiguous.
