On Sun, May 20, 2012 5:44 pm, Pierre Joye wrote:
> On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 11:03 PM, Rafael Dohms
> wrote:
>> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Anthony Ferrara
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I had meant to reply to the list, but I had replied to Stas
>>> directly.
>>> I would be happy to change my vote from iss
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 12:44 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:
>
>
> See the previous mails, as long as other voters agree to change their
> votes to empty only, we are done.
If my math does not fail me, we needed one more vote to have the 2/3 mentioned.
Anthony has changed his vote, i think we are good to
hi,
On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 11:03 PM, Rafael Dohms
wrote:
> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
>
>> I had meant to reply to the list, but I had replied to Stas directly.
>> I would be happy to change my vote from isset() and empty() to empty()
>> only if that's what it would
Hi!
> This would settle it, so in the realm of "action" what can we do now?
> Is there a rule that allows to call for a re-vote?
> Should start a new RFC?
> Or can we just alter the vote and consider this the "end of voting"?
I think we can just put empty() expression implementation into master
a
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Anthony Ferrara wrote:
> I had meant to reply to the list, but I had replied to Stas directly.
> I would be happy to change my vote from isset() and empty() to empty()
> only if that's what it would take...
>
> Anthony
This would settle it, so in the realm of "ac
Pierre,
>> AFAIK 2 of the people voting "both" (myself included) already said they
>> are OK with "empty only".
>
> If the other one can raise his voice, then we are good.
I had meant to reply to the list, but I had replied to Stas directly.
I would be happy to change my vote from isset() and emp
hi Stas,
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 9:02 AM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> As Stas suggested earlier, it would help if you can convince one
>> person having voted none or both to choose the empty only option, then
>> you should be good. It is not that good in general, but for 1/3 of a
>> voice for
Hi!
> Or simply don't have voting rights ...
> Personally I would prefer to see 'empty()' remain limited to real variables.
AFAIK all committers have voting rights on wiki.
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
(408)454-6900 ext. 227
--
PHP Internals - PH
Stas Malyshev wrote:
> The PHP group is totally irrelevant in this process, with all due
> respect. It is about php.net developers.
Which is what I meant - most of the developers (or committers) did not
vote at all.
Or simply don't have voting rights ...
Personally I would prefer to see 'empt
Hi!
> The PHP group is totally irrelevant in this process, with all due
> respect. It is about php.net developers.
Which is what I meant - most of the developers (or committers) did not
vote at all.
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
(408)454-6900 ext. 2
Hi!
> As Stas suggested earlier, it would help if you can convince one
> person having voted none or both to choose the empty only option, then
> you should be good. It is not that good in general, but for 1/3 of a
> voice for something like that ... :)
AFAIK 2 of the people voting "both" (myself
hi.
On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 4:15 PM, Nikita Popov wrote:
> We had at least one precedent of a vote with three options, where the
> option that was implemented in the end had only 59% of the votes.
As far as I remember the final decision was more about what was
actually used in the documentatio
hi Sean,
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 12:45 AM, Sean Coates wrote:
>> which raises the question,
>> if most of the PHP group doesn't care enough to vote, does it mean it is
>> a bad feature?
>
>
> I think the disinterest is more generalized than this particular vote. As far
> as I can tell, only 3½ m
On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 7:35 PM, Sean Coates wrote:
> > can I ask how did you come up with that number, and who is the half man?
> :)
>
> Rasmus, Andi, and Ze'ev. Andrei works with something PHP-related, sort of,
> still, and is only involved on occasion, so I counted him for half.
>
If he's hal
> can I ask how did you come up with that number, and who is the half man? :)
Rasmus, Andi, and Ze'ev. Andrei works with something PHP-related, sort of,
still, and is only involved on occasion, so I counted him for half.
The others are all names from Internets past (pardon me if I'm wrong, but I
Ironically enough, he's probably the only "whole man" of the Lannisters really.
> -Original Message-
> From: Stas Malyshev [mailto:smalys...@sugarcrm.com]
> Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2012 6:23 PM
> To: Ferenc Kovacs
> Cc: PHP internals
> Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV]
Hi!
> can I ask how did you come up with that number, and who is the half man? :)
Tyrion Lannister?
(sorry, couldn't help it)
--
Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
(408)454-6900 ext. 227
--
PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
To unsubscri
On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 12:45 AM, Sean Coates wrote:
> > which raises the question,
> > if most of the PHP group doesn't care enough to vote, does it mean it is
> > a bad feature?
>
>
> I think the disinterest is more generalized than this particular vote. As
> far as I can tell, only 3½ members
> which raises the question,
> if most of the PHP group doesn't care enough to vote, does it mean it is
> a bad feature?
I think the disinterest is more generalized than this particular vote. As far
as I can tell, only 3½ members of the PHP Group actually still participate in
the PHP community
Hi!
> Also as I can understand the frustration for such tight votes, it is
> however a good sign that there is no real consensus nor a huge
> interest to change that.
16/4 is not exactly what I would call "close vote". But I think it's not
the lack of consensus but lack of interest - which raises
hi,
On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 11:37 PM, Kris Craig wrote:
> This is exactly what I was afraid of. The current voting process doesn't
> account for multi-question votes like this
It does. But one has to select multiple choices votes too, if he does
not want to fail because some voted for one opti
On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > I just closed the vote for this RFC. The result (see
> > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/empty_isset_exprs#vote) is:
> >
> > * Both empty() and isset(): 3
> > * Only empty(): 13
> > * None: 4
>
> Low turnout is kind of disappointing - eit
Hi!
> I just closed the vote for this RFC. The result (see
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/empty_isset_exprs#vote) is:
>
> * Both empty() and isset(): 3
> * Only empty(): 13
> * None: 4
Low turnout is kind of disappointing - either people are not interested
in this feature or don't care in general.
On Sun, 13 May 2012 16:15:43 +0200, Nikita Popov
wrote:
I'm not sure I can follow. The vote has three options, of which two
are quite similar. I don't see how the 2/3 rule for votes with two
options can be applied here, in such a black&white fashion.
The fact there are more than two options
On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Pierre Joye wrote:
> hi,
>
> On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 3:07 PM, Gustavo Lopes wrote:
>
>> The rule is that "a feature affecting the language itself (new syntax for
>> example) will be considered as 'accepted' if it wins a 2/3 of the votes". 13
>> votes in 20 is not
hi,
On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 3:07 PM, Gustavo Lopes wrote:
> The rule is that "a feature affecting the language itself (new syntax for
> example) will be considered as 'accepted' if it wins a 2/3 of the votes". 13
> votes in 20 is not 2/3 of the votes. So the question is whether any of the
> pers
On Sun, 13 May 2012 14:56:23 +0200, Nikita Popov
wrote:
I just closed the vote for this RFC. The result (see
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/empty_isset_exprs#vote) is:
* Both empty() and isset(): 3
* Only empty(): 13
* None: 4
I'm not exactly sure what the policy for votes with three options is,
I just closed the vote for this RFC. The result (see
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/empty_isset_exprs#vote) is:
* Both empty() and isset(): 3
* Only empty(): 13
* None: 4
I'm not exactly sure what the policy for votes with three options is,
but given that the large majority voted for "Only empty()", I
28 matches
Mail list logo
