Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:60207
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.42 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAF+90c_gsfNXfaZ=moxR_cUcj5atGUCoDP3xZKpWy8dPAdDN1A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAF+90c_gsfNXfaZ=moxR_cUcj5atGUCoDP3xZKpWy8dPAdDN1A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 16:57:49 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKOpQSw8=nDcGZAj00G_6ja3AU+FgZVRXMAS-wntY1i3oT4vwQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@googlemail.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d0442811e94a1bd04bdfcd277
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Allow non-variable arguments to empty()
From: kris.craig@gmail.com (Kris Craig)

--f46d0442811e94a1bd04bdfcd277
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Ugh I hate to throw a POO into this, but....

On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 4:09 PM, Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@googlemail.com>wrote:

> Hey internals :)
>
> As there doesn't seem to be any further discussion regarding my RFC,
> I've opened the vote:
>
> https://wiki.php.net/rfc/empty_isset_exprs#vote
>
> Nikita
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
"There'd be a minimum of 2 weeks between when an RFC that touches the
language is brought up on this list and when it's voted on is required.
Other RFCs might use a smaller timeframe, but it should be at least a week."

(from http://wiki.php.net/rfc/voting)

From what I can tell, you first created the topic on this 6 days ago.  Even
if this didn't touch the language (which I think it does), voting would not
be permissible yet.

For the record, I do plan to vote yes on this and I think the voting rules
should be amended to allow for sooner voting if discussion has ended.  But
until such amendments are made, are we really comfortable setting a
precedent of just ignoring the policy whenever it proves inconvenient?  I
know I've been a bit of a lightning rod recently but I really think we
should make a decision on how we want to handle this.  Personally, I'm a
big fan of having consistent procedures and defined parameters.  But if
we're going to treat the voting RFC as binding or non-binding, I just think
we should overtly express a collective position on that here.

I'll refrain from voting on this until other people have had a chance to
weigh-in on this concern.  I think we basically have three choices:  Cancel
the vote on this RFC and wait until the 2 weeks have passed, come to a
decision that the rules in the voting RFC are non-binding, *or *(and this
would be my preference) let it slide this time with the understanding that
we'll add clarifying language to the voting procedure in the forseeable
future.


....And in the interest of making people not want to murder me and feed my
entrails to a pack of wild ferrets, I'll shut up now.  ;)

--Kris

--f46d0442811e94a1bd04bdfcd277--