Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:60216
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain googlemail.com designates 209.85.217.170 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAKOpQSw8=nDcGZAj00G_6ja3AU+FgZVRXMAS-wntY1i3oT4vwQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAF+90c_gsfNXfaZ=moxR_cUcj5atGUCoDP3xZKpWy8dPAdDN1A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKOpQSw8=nDcGZAj00G_6ja3AU+FgZVRXMAS-wntY1i3oT4vwQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 15:11:38 +0200
Message-ID: <CAF+90c_v4SX440jL4BMDOzeYOVUoP270aM34dhbbKin9yoFd-w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kris Craig <kris.craig@gmail.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Allow non-variable arguments to empty()
From: nikita.ppv@googlemail.com (Nikita Popov)

On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 1:57 AM, Kris Craig <kris.craig@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 wee=
k."
>
> (from http://wiki.php.net/rfc/voting)
>
> From what I can tell, you first created the topic on this 6 days ago. =A0=
Even
> if this didn't touch the language (which I think it does), voting would n=
ot
> be permissible yet.
>
> For the record, I do plan to vote yes on this and I think the voting rule=
s
> should be amended to allow for sooner voting if discussion has ended. =A0=
But
> until such amendments are made, are we really comfortable setting a
> precedent of just ignoring the policy whenever it proves inconvenient? =
=A0I
> 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. =A0Personally, I'm =
a big
> fan of having consistent procedures and defined parameters. =A0But 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. =A0I think we basically have three choices: =A0=
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 tha=
t
> 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 m=
y
> entrails to a pack of wild ferrets, I'll shut up now. =A0;)

I've asked about this on IRC and it seems like there is no problem
opening the vote now. Quoting:

"The purpose of the waiting period is to allow time for discussion
instead of rushing things before someone can find a problem. The
discussion having died and this being a simple change, I don't see the
problem with opening the vote now. Only a strict formalist like Kris
would interpret rules while ignoring their purpose."

Thanks,
Nikita