Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:60548
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 74.125.82.54 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4FB01781.60001@sugarcrm.com>
References: <CAF+90c-Xfs0n-E=+s3g9GE=UZHGvPYdagCho0ma65u6YB+0Tgg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAF+90c-_78TufE8+L8UNfuXLwPW9QgrSWyQaHvS8TOjj40-_cQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<4FB01781.60001@sugarcrm.com>
Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 14:37:00 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKOpQSwmQjX1TR=XEGtZVBivghE8XA8vGL7uM3xh6v9ta6j7xA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>
Cc: Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv@googlemail.com>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e6dd8bfc071fe504bff1c5e9
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [VOTE] Vote change for empty() RFC
From: kris.craig@gmail.com (Kris Craig)

--0016e6dd8bfc071fe504bff1c5e9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Stas Malyshev <smalyshev@sugarcrm.com>wrote:

> Hi!
>
> > 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
>
> Low turnout is kind of disappointing - either people are not interested
> in this feature or don't care in general. Since we have only 3 people
> voting "both", we should ask them what they prefer. I, for example,
> prefer "only empty" to "none".
>
> --
> Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
> SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
> (408)454-6900 ext. 227
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>
This is exactly what I was afraid of.  The current voting process doesn't
account for multi-question votes like this, so there's no consensus on how
they should be counted (i.e. do you add all the "yes" votes and divide by
the total or take the question with the most "yes" votes and divide that
one by the total?).  I think this would be a good time for us to reconsider
my earlier suggestion of drafting an RFC to amend and clarify the voting
process to allow for such scenarios.

Right now, there's obviously no consensus on how to count the votes, so I
think the only proper course of action would be to nullify this vote
entirely and start over with just a simple "yes" or "no" question and
nothing else.  Since there does seem to be wide agreement that it should
only be empty(), I'd say just limit the scope to that.

--Kris

--0016e6dd8bfc071fe504bff1c5e9--