Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:60541 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 40374 invoked from network); 13 May 2012 13:07:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 13 May 2012 13:07:20 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=glopes@nebm.ist.utl.pt; spf=permerror; sender-id=unknown Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=glopes@nebm.ist.utl.pt; sender-id=unknown Received-SPF: error (pb1.pair.com: domain nebm.ist.utl.pt from 193.136.128.21 cause and error) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: glopes@nebm.ist.utl.pt X-Host-Fingerprint: 193.136.128.21 smtp1.ist.utl.pt Linux 2.6 Received: from [193.136.128.21] ([193.136.128.21:53257] helo=smtp1.ist.utl.pt) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 3C/32-16338-602BFAF4 for ; Sun, 13 May 2012 09:07:19 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp1.ist.utl.pt (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54AF57000432 for ; Sun, 13 May 2012 14:07:15 +0100 (WEST) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-2.6.4 (20090625) (Debian) at ist.utl.pt Received: from smtp1.ist.utl.pt ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp1.ist.utl.pt [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10025) with LMTP id UUr3Ki13GImr for ; Sun, 13 May 2012 14:07:15 +0100 (WEST) Received: from mail2.ist.utl.pt (mail.ist.utl.pt [IPv6:2001:690:2100:1::8]) by smtp1.ist.utl.pt (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EE397000430 for ; Sun, 13 May 2012 14:07:14 +0100 (WEST) Received: from damnation.mshome.net (damnation-air.nl.lo.geleia.net [IPv6:2001:470:94a2:4:7d06:1af1:ea64:2d52]) (Authenticated sender: ist155741) by mail2.ist.utl.pt (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 978AB2007061 for ; Sun, 13 May 2012 14:07:13 +0100 (WEST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes To: internals@lists.php.net References: Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 15:07:08 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Organization: =?utf-8?Q?N=C3=BAcleo_de_Eng=2E_Biom=C3=A9di?= =?utf-8?Q?ca_do_I=2ES=2ET=2E?= Message-ID: In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Opera Mail/11.62 (Win32) Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [VOTE] Vote change for empty() RFC From: glopes@nebm.ist.utl.pt ("Gustavo Lopes") On Sun, 13 May 2012 14:56:23 +0200, Nikita Popov wrote: > I just closed the vote for this RFC. The result (see > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/empty_isset_exprs#vote) is: > > * Both empty() and isset(): 3 > * Only empty(): 13 > * None: 4 > > I'm not exactly sure what the policy for votes with three options is, > but given that the large majority voted for "Only empty()", I'll > assume that that's the accepted option. > 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. -- Gustavo Lopes