Re: Re: [RFC] Pre-vote notice for Nullable Types

On 5/7/16, 1:19 PM, "Nikita Popov" <nikita.ppv@gmail.com> wrote: >This RFC has one primary vote and one secondary vote. The primary vote >determines whether we want to add nullable types to our type system. The >secondary vote decides how precisely this will happen, in this instance >deciding whether nullable types will be restricted to return types only >or not. This is a standard voting layout, with precedent in a number of >other RFCs. > >The reason why the second vote must use a 1/2 majority is symmetry. You, >as somebody who does not like nullable parameter types, argue from a >perspective of one 2/3 majority RFC for introducing nullable returns and >another 2/3 majority RFC for introducing nullable params. I, as somebody >who thinks supporting this syntax only for returns is wildly >inconsistent, will argue from a perspective of a 2/3 majority RFC for >introducing nullable *types* and another 2/3 majority RFC for restricting >them to return types only. Depending on the perspective this would >require either a 2/3 majority, or a 1/3 "majority" for unrestricted >nullable types. Using a 1/2 majority vote ensures that there is no bias >for either choice. The explanation is very clear. Thank you. Tom (Btw, I don't disagree about the inconsistency you mentioned. But I don't think it's a wild inconsistency, rather a justified one, given our context.)