Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:93107
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.192.172 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: morrison.levi@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <572E0A60.4090506@thefsb.org>
References: <CAFMT4NoBqMrNSP_6J8nzA6E_+UChkjUz0jCvhXy_GE9RV3r2=Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<572E0A60.4090506@thefsb.org>
Date: Sat, 7 May 2016 10:06:13 -0600
Message-ID: <CAFMT4NrROrcycnQKunJ3_cdSDBdV3YtN_yLBi+UVirXLkqi0bQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tom Worster <fsb@thefsb.org>
Cc: internals <internals@lists.php.net>, Dmitry Stogov <dmitry@zend.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [RFC] Pre-vote notice for Nullable Types
From: levim@php.net (Levi Morrison)

On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 9:31 AM, Tom Worster <fsb@thefsb.org> wrote:
> On 5/6/16 3:41 PM, Levi Morrison wrote:
>>
>> The [RFC for Nullable Types][1] is going to go into the voting phase
>> soon. There have been a few changes to the RFC in the meantime:
>>
>>    - More example for documentation's sake
>>    - The vote is now split into two parts: one for nullable parameter
>> types and one for nullable return types.
>
>
> The vote counting surprises me. Say, for the sake of argument, a
> hypothetical nullable returns RFC were to pass with 2/3. After that a 2nd
> hypothetical RFC for nullable parameters goes to vote. This 2nd RFC would
> need 2/3 to pass. Your RFC defines the same two separate language changes as
> two votes but one of them requires only a majority.
>
> Also, could you clarify in the RFC text how the voting works. For example,
> is it the case that the entire nullable parameter vote is discarded if the
> nullable return vote does not pass?
>
> Tom

Dmitry is the one who wanted the split vote, so I will defer the answer to him.