Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:77462
Return-Path: <mike.php.net@gmail.com>
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net
Received: (qmail 46806 invoked from network); 22 Sep 2014 12:44:01 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 22 Sep 2014 12:44:01 -0000
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=mike.php.net@gmail.com; sender-id=pass
Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=mike.php.net@gmail.com; spf=pass; sender-id=pass
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.212.175 as permitted sender)
X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: mike.php.net@gmail.com
X-Host-Fingerprint: 209.85.212.175 mail-wi0-f175.google.com  
Received: from [209.85.212.175] ([209.85.212.175:58727] helo=mail-wi0-f175.google.com)
	by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP
	id 8E/03-31799-19910245 for <internals@lists.php.net>; Mon, 22 Sep 2014 08:44:01 -0400
Received: by mail-wi0-f175.google.com with SMTP id r20so2831545wiv.14
        for <internals@lists.php.net>; Mon, 22 Sep 2014 05:43:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
        h=sender:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject
         :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=pMVYm0NsbBrvvpg50fjUMvRYDwQuKucWcK+5mj6tkQY=;
        b=FXjSqrQQu0yQnDhfa2Z6aOQnDfiM8feCz591vc1L2tAFKC7GS3HX2gVtXk8bpLMiPz
         klVd88d4Uv8pww89i+qApQaCOqbvRJycx06tpex1y8W76vdPn3NuzSfh+2etd5l3SJ0C
         UX4K7XPAWss1GD550MTGRFk7wlAPmoBHOnDTBCQy4d3Amn27hAMkuZnMXh1a51vaB5M9
         hWSAbXqenlG847aDAlo6iT8sbKiDEykp7zw+/L4RH9gAoczodRgb5+Ft7WMGUFy2dJhL
         ODDEMplbbvlsOqBAyfQgHFqBYObovruaaqfoEnypd7xzZZNa6JJHVV4/bns2NRKmLG2b
         n93w==
X-Received: by 10.180.211.36 with SMTP id mz4mr15313146wic.39.1411389838266;
        Mon, 22 Sep 2014 05:43:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.4.120] (178-18-170-101.customer.bnet.at. [178.18.170.101])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id g6sm11893782wjf.13.2014.09.22.05.43.56
        for <multiple recipients>
        (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
        Mon, 22 Sep 2014 05:43:57 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: Michael Wallner <mike.php.net@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5420198C.4070209@php.net>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 14:43:56 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Andrea Faulds <ajf@ajf.me>, Derick Rethans <derick@php.net>
CC: Peter Cowburn <petercowburn@gmail.com>, 
 Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com>,
 Laruence <laruence@php.net>, PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <B08F027B-EACA-42A1-BAFD-8B0FB3135016@ajf.me> <4D27A10E-6EC6-4806-94DB-1BF1B976CA7D@ajf.me> <CABBJUpf1jiZ9vs7MSvKXiC7J-=SD026YdW5XLHQ1vQ+nt6wpZA@mail.gmail.com> <F6E6CDD3-A81D-44ED-B607-CFB4A7C98211@ajf.me> <CABBJUpfW0+H_KstZ0j42YQTFCqZKf5OxyBnVY0-iRMUiC1sCng@mail.gmail.com> <CAEZPtU6fMgbDACUPy+LDqprBKE28qV2R1DfumyteaOTGe9hCBA@mail.gmail.com> <CABBJUpenAoQmDyvs5tNejnwH7raqHEm48jn8oXmokQMf7Yta9A@mail.gmail.com> <CAEZPtU5b9Rr0D5=cvqQKZrvFtUddgjQNnFxhJ8a-ZRRNmm2_eg@mail.gmail.com> <CAPg3XxKSxz1bgC+6dmOVFuJsfUHwg8khu7jq_WPxpshifMurWA@mail.gmail.com> <600A7E27-7E6F-4ECF-805F-D62814AA3AB2@ajf.me> <CAPg3XxJE7M5DC+rXoF7KobCeVp3_n0k4Kjpn=O0ipBfegim_8g@mail.gmail.com> <CAEZPtU6wZFWkkheakY4FUr=gGi3Fwi5NReauPAoZoR3TDqBV5A@mail.gmail.com> <CAPg3Xx+Jsy6ms6Ypabg6fMd-DMEtR431cKofxTyqdqe8QKO6SQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.11.1409221201010.4267@whisky.home.derickrethans.nl> <CD6942FA-7A72-46AB-97EF-914042ECCF6F@ajf.me>
In-Reply-To: <CD6942FA-7A72-46AB-97EF-914042ECCF6F@ajf.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [VOTE][RFC] Integer Semantics
From: mike@php.net (Michael Wallner)

On 2014-09-22 14:08, Andrea Faulds wrote:
> 
> On 22 Sep 2014, at 12:06, Derick Rethans <derick@php.net> wrote:
> 
>> I would also like to point out that, just like a 8:8 vote is not a
>> "50% majority", 16:8 is technically also not a two thirds
>> *majority*. The RFC, like with many other important things is of
>> course too vague on this.

The "+1" is only for 50% majorities.

> 
> An 8:8 vote is not a majority, no, but a 9:8 would be a 50%+1
> majority.
> 
> A 16:8 vote *is* a 2/3 majority. 

Yes, I think so, too.



-- 
Regards,
Mike