Re: Re: [VOTE] Vote change for empty() RFC
| From: | Pierre Joye | Date: | Sun, 13 May 2012 13:14:03 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: Re: [VOTE] Vote change for empty() RFC | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-60542@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
hi,
On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 3:07 PM, Gustavo Lopes <glopes@nebm.ist.utl.pt> 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
> persons that voted for "both empty() and isset()" prefers "only empty()" to
> "none.
It is not the same. As far as I can tell, this RFC (no matter which
option) is not accepted and we keep the current behavior untouched.
For the next time, there is an option to allow multiple choices afair.
That could have avoided this problem (or introduce two results with
same votes :).
Cheers,
--
Pierre
@pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org