Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:60562 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 25818 invoked from network); 14 May 2012 05:48:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 14 May 2012 05:48:53 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=pierre.php@gmail.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=pierre.php@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.213.170 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: pierre.php@gmail.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.213.170 mail-yx0-f170.google.com Received: from [209.85.213.170] ([209.85.213.170:43570] helo=mail-yx0-f170.google.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 50/EE-16338-4CC90BF4 for ; Mon, 14 May 2012 01:48:53 -0400 Received: by yenm2 with SMTP id m2so3043719yen.29 for ; Sun, 13 May 2012 22:48:50 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=BjAO4p6WcW1hazXtZwzF7e+J4xPcBmdI8U0dgJoa4FU=; b=mawB/w+2aXvX9xZkXVeTmKHPLXsZsqc+oNNcyrvWominJvZvM4E+1FA7o0y7dvWXrT 0CkKT7nbdALJuEWlRXpHy2uPPIgMgLObceVWO559jXdYn1xmwB705rL9cySrhfo7/m0H IXawtuigafvqiJrtzMzaDfl8ViypAh0XG8gd0j2yEWa3fsrdocvfKkkOsicfvdSyLu8M dY//dwFR6VGE2cHn0wMAuP6V6IU6ro5pETqDtLeDWIIMnYtccDVP3I1U74vhC71dXIex /PyzK35HL3CnUhH1VGKrgagsd2NpIHx5FmVxyi8uDRZut6Rs6NAHuhDKW1roiSUzACEn 6OoQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.236.190.2 with SMTP id d2mr6570177yhn.48.1336974529995; Sun, 13 May 2012 22:48:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.147.113.7 with HTTP; Sun, 13 May 2012 22:48:49 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 14 May 2012 07:48:49 +0200 Message-ID: To: Nikita Popov Cc: Gustavo Lopes , 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 4:15 PM, Nikita Popov wrote: > We had at least one precedent of a vote with three options, where the > option that was implemented in the end had only 59% of the votes. As far as I remember the final decision was more about what was actually used in the documentation. > Additionally I want to note that in this case there was a more general > Yes/No vote before the more precise one, which ended with 12:2 (86% in > favor). It is not 100% sure that everyone wants both to be changed. As Stas suggested earlier, it would help if you can convince one person having voted none or both to choose the empty only option, then you should be good. It is not that good in general, but for 1/3 of a voice for something like that ... :) Also let try to document how to create multiple choices vote better for the next ones. Cheers, -- Pierre @pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org