Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:60663 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 65205 invoked from network); 22 May 2012 19:05:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 22 May 2012 19:05:14 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=swhitemanlistens-software@cypressintegrated.com; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=swhitemanlistens-software@cypressintegrated.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain cypressintegrated.com designates 69.28.242.152 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: swhitemanlistens-software@cypressintegrated.com X-Host-Fingerprint: 69.28.242.152 rproxy1-a.cypressintegrated.com Received: from [69.28.242.152] ([69.28.242.152:1177] helo=rproxy1-a.cypressintegrated.com) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 2B/03-49069-963EBBF4 for ; Tue, 22 May 2012 15:05:13 -0400 Received: from localhost ([192.168.87.152]) by rproxy1-a.cypressintegrated.com (Brand New Heavy v1.0) with ASMTP id GYB39010 for ; Tue, 22 May 2012 15:05:10 -0400 Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 15:05:26 -0400 Reply-To: Sanford Whiteman X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <756666188.20120522150526@cypressintegrated.com> To: internals@lists.php.net In-Reply-To: integrated.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] 2/3 = ??? Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE] Vote change for empty() RFC From: swhitemanlistens-software@cypressintegrated.com (Sanford Whiteman) > I'm not sure I understand where the conflict is. 2/3 * 50 =3D=3D 33 1/3. > Therefore, 33 states would be just below the required 2/3, while 34 stat= es > would be just above it. So the 34 figure you quoted seems to match this > perfectly. > The article does mention some ambiguity, but that's pertaining to whether > the "total" includes everyone who *can* vote or just everyone who *did* > vote. As far as I know, that's not relevant to this discussion. I agree, don't see any relevant edges. From=20what I can see in the "bylaws for writing bylaws" world, it is understood that you must have whole persons unless you *specifically* make an exception that you will use the ceiling. -- S.