Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:60551 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 85918 invoked from network); 13 May 2012 22:12:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 13 May 2012 22:12:38 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=smalyshev@sugarcrm.com; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain sugarcrm.com designates 67.192.241.153 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 67.192.241.153 smtp153.dfw.emailsrvr.com Linux 2.6 Received: from [67.192.241.153] ([67.192.241.153:46819] helo=smtp153.dfw.emailsrvr.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 8C/68-16338-5D130BF4 for ; Sun, 13 May 2012 18:12:38 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp15.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 3AE0130022D; Sun, 13 May 2012 18:12:35 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: OK Received: by smtp15.relay.dfw1a.emailsrvr.com (Authenticated sender: smalyshev-AT-sugarcrm.com) with ESMTPSA id 6D0BC3001D4; Sun, 13 May 2012 18:12:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4FB031D1.2010606@sugarcrm.com> Date: Sun, 13 May 2012 15:12:33 -0700 Organization: SugarCRM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pierre Joye CC: Kris Craig , Nikita Popov , PHP internals References: <4FB01781.60001@sugarcrm.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [VOTE] Vote change for empty() RFC From: smalyshev@sugarcrm.com (Stas Malyshev) Hi! > Also as I can understand the frustration for such tight votes, it is > however a good sign that there is no real consensus nor a huge > interest to change that. 16/4 is not exactly what I would call "close vote". But I think it's not the lack of consensus but lack of interest - which raises the question, if most of the PHP group doesn't care enough to vote, does it mean it is a bad feature? Is it good that we have these things decided literally by one vote or absence of one vote? -- Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/ (408)454-6900 ext. 227