Re: Re: [VOTE] Vote change for empty() RFC

On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. 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. 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. That was the vote for the callable typehint [1]. The three options were: * Callable: 34 * Callback: 18 * Neither: 6 I think that vote was very similar to this one. Two of the options were "in favor", but differed in the exact implementation, and the last option was "against". The only difference is that in this case one option actually has 65%, not 59%. Additionally I want to note that in this case there was a more general Yes/No vote before the more precise one, which ended with 12:2 (86% in favor). Nikita [1]: https://wiki.php.net/todo/php54/vote#doodle__form__callable_typecheck_in_arguments_choose_which_name_you_prefer