Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:107364
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAF+90c_Ds+UNZB4hAi1989SRafb=d1JkP2q4pdwkUUXfcHrLCw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAF+90c99w6Uk+P8rm_p0Pd3iKsBKQqAbBjs2Zzwb5vGW9-snhQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAF+90c9zAggYVeU76kgJydmNr3nzN2wKgOjTz3QF7yohJLQCOw@mail.gmail.com> <CAESVnVojZe9ePpDxpaPQoN5g4TR1s3WKYzPg8KPpd8MgXUZENQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAESVnVojZe9ePpDxpaPQoN5g4TR1s3WKYzPg8KPpd8MgXUZENQ@mail.gmail.com>
Reply-To: bishop@php.net
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2019 12:11:00 -0400
Message-ID: <CAEYWF=5SDEqdL3vY9ZhyTfiPGtrGAT-vAvD0xrCocTUExJUc6w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sara Golemon <pollita@php.net>
Cc: Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a11f6f0593efb8c8"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [VOTE] Reclassifying engine warnings
From: bishop@php.net (Bishop Bettini)

--000000000000a11f6f0593efb8c8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 11:45 AM Sara Golemon <pollita@php.net> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 8:24 AM Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > * The "Undefined array index" case. This one passed the vote with an
> exact
> > 2/3 majority, so I'm a bit uncomfortable making changes here. This is
> also
> > the only case where convincing usability concerns have been brought
> > forward, primarily around the $array[$key]++ example. I'm not yet decided
> > on what to do here and whether we should pursue additional library or
> > language features first.
> >
> >
> We raised margins to 2/3 to avoid having to feel bad about narrow
> majorities.  I say this as someone who was quite tempted to vote "Keep
> Notice" which on retrospect would have changed the entire outcome based on
> that one vote.
>
> If this had been a simple majority vote and it had pass by like....
> 52%-48%, then obviously that's not a mandate worth making potentially
> catastrophic changes over, but this is 67% to 33%, it feels like you're
> okay here.
>

I'd say it's ok, also: with 63 votes cast, I think we have a quorum and
therefore representative opinion. (Per [1], this vote is second only in
participation to typed properties 2.0, with 71 votes cast.)

I personally abstained, seeing both sides of the argument.

[1]:https://php-rfc-watch.beberlei.de/

--000000000000a11f6f0593efb8c8--