Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:60542
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.213.42 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <op.wd8z16uqidpuyk@damnation.mshome.net>
References: <CAF+90c-Xfs0n-E=+s3g9GE=UZHGvPYdagCho0ma65u6YB+0Tgg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAF+90c-_78TufE8+L8UNfuXLwPW9QgrSWyQaHvS8TOjj40-_cQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<op.wd8z16uqidpuyk@damnation.mshome.net>
Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 15:14:03 +0200
Message-ID: <CAEZPtU7BvZEHh4wQErQh2E+=REV0W=RXx-iPxUAiesTS39neRg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gustavo Lopes <glopes@nebm.ist.utl.pt>
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [VOTE] Vote change for empty() RFC
From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye)

hi,

On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 3:07 PM, Gustavo Lopes <glopes@nebm.ist.utl.pt> wrote:

> 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.

It is not the same. As far as I can tell, this RFC (no matter which
option) is not accepted and we keep the current behavior untouched.

For the next time, there is an option to allow multiple choices afair.
That could have avoided this problem (or introduce two results with
same votes :).

Cheers,
-- 
Pierre

@pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org