Re: Re: [VOTE] Intermediate Results

On Thu, 5 Oct 2006, Michael Wallner wrote: > Michael Wallner wrote: > > > I'd therefore like to conduct a serious vote on this issue. > > > > [X] (+1) please remove that redundant strictness again > > [ ] (-1) leave as it is, we need strict OO implementation > > [ ] ( 0) what the hell are you talking about? > > > 3, 2 [+1] (remove) Mike, Pierre, Edin (Robert Cummings, Bertrand Gugger) > 1, 1 [+0] (nonfatal) Zeev (Richard Lynch) > 3, 0 [-1] (leave) Sebastian, Ilia, Derick > > > There are lots of people still missing. I would rather see that it stays e_error, but a demotion to e_strict would work for me as well. But then we should also be able to instate the e_strict for other strictness issues with the OO model (such as using an undeclared class variable). regards, Derick