FAQ
Hi internals!

As per Pierres request I'm posting a new voting thread for my empty() RFC.

During discussions on IRC it turned out that most people would prefer
to allow expressions for empty(), but not for isset(), that's why the
vote now has three options:

* Both empty() and isset() should allow expressions
* Only empty() should allow them
* None of them should accept expressions

https://wiki.php.net/rfc/empty_isset_exprs#vote

Thanks,
Nikita

Search Discussions

  • Ferenc Kovacs at May 1, 2012 at 4:30 pm

    * None of them should accept expressions
    just to be clear, this means keeping the current behavior as is.

    --
    Ferenc Kovács
    @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu
  • Nikita Popov at May 13, 2012 at 12:56 pm
    I just closed the vote for this RFC. The result (see
    https://wiki.php.net/rfc/empty_isset_exprs#vote) is:

    * Both empty() and isset(): 3
    * Only empty(): 13
    * None: 4

    I'm not exactly sure what the policy for votes with three options is,
    but given that the large majority voted for "Only empty()", I'll
    assume that that's the accepted option.

    I updated my PR to only allow expressions for empty() and added nicer
    error messages for isset(): https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/54

    It would be nice if somebody could apply that PR, as I don't have Zend karma :)

    Nikita
  • Gustavo Lopes at May 13, 2012 at 1:07 pm

    On Sun, 13 May 2012 14:56:23 +0200, Nikita Popov wrote:

    I just closed the vote for this RFC. The result (see
    https://wiki.php.net/rfc/empty_isset_exprs#vote) is:

    * Both empty() and isset(): 3
    * Only empty(): 13
    * None: 4

    I'm not exactly sure what the policy for votes with three options is,
    but given that the large majority voted for "Only empty()", I'll
    assume that that's the accepted option.
    The rule is that "a feature affecting the language itself (new syntax for
    example) will be considered as 'accepted' if it wins a 2/3 of the votes".
    13 votes in 20 is not 2/3 of the votes. So the question is whether any of
    the persons that voted for "both empty() and isset()" prefers "only
    empty()" to "none.

    --
    Gustavo Lopes
  • Pierre Joye at May 13, 2012 at 1:14 pm
    hi,
    On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 3:07 PM, Gustavo Lopes wrote:

    The rule is that "a feature affecting the language itself (new syntax for
    example) will be considered as 'accepted' if it wins a 2/3 of the votes". 13
    votes in 20 is not 2/3 of the votes. So the question is whether any of the
    persons that voted for "both empty() and isset()" prefers "only empty()" to
    "none.
    It is not the same. As far as I can tell, this RFC (no matter which
    option) is not accepted and we keep the current behavior untouched.

    For the next time, there is an option to allow multiple choices afair.
    That could have avoided this problem (or introduce two results with
    same votes :).

    Cheers,
  • Nikita Popov at May 13, 2012 at 2:15 pm

    On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 3:14 PM, Pierre Joye wrote:
    hi,
    On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 3:07 PM, Gustavo Lopes wrote:

    The rule is that "a feature affecting the language itself (new syntax for
    example) will be considered as 'accepted' if it wins a 2/3 of the votes". 13
    votes in 20 is not 2/3 of the votes. So the question is whether any of the
    persons that voted for "both empty() and isset()" prefers "only empty()" to
    "none.
    It is not the same. As far as I can tell, this RFC (no matter which
    option) is not accepted and we keep the current behavior untouched.
    I'm not sure I can follow. The vote has three options, of which two
    are quite similar. I don't see how the 2/3 rule for votes with two
    options can be applied here, in such a black&white fashion.

    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. That
    was the vote for the callable typehint [1]. The three options were:

    * Callable: 34
    * Callback: 18
    * Neither: 6

    I think that vote was very similar to this one. Two of the options
    were "in favor", but differed in the exact implementation, and the
    last option was "against". The only difference is that in this case
    one option actually has 65%, not 59%.

    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).

    Nikita

    [1]: https://wiki.php.net/todo/php54/vote#doodle__form__callable_typecheck_in_arguments_choose_which_name_you_prefer
  • Gustavo Lopes at May 13, 2012 at 2:43 pm

    On Sun, 13 May 2012 16:15:43 +0200, Nikita Popov wrote:

    I'm not sure I can follow. The vote has three options, of which two
    are quite similar. I don't see how the 2/3 rule for votes with two
    options can be applied here, in such a black&white fashion.
    The fact there are more than two options should not alleviate the majority
    requirement. Let's say everyone who voted for empty()/isset() would prefer
    none to empty() only. Should this vote now pass just because you added an
    extra options that dilutes the votes against the most voted option?

    For instance, debian requires a supermajority for certain proposals
    independently from the number of options (see e.g.
    http://www.debian.org/vote/2008/vote_003 ).
    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. That
    was the vote for the callable typehint [1]. The three options were:

    * Callable: 34
    * Callback: 18
    * Neither: 6

    I think that vote was very similar to this one. Two of the options
    were "in favor", but differed in the exact implementation, and the
    last option was "against". The only difference is that in this case
    one option actually has 65%, not 59%.
    This vote is an aberration and your description is disingenuous; some
    people that voted for callable also voted for callback, but your
    description suggests that the votes for callback should all count against
    callable. So someone that would vote for callable and callback would
    actually be casting a vote against whichever of those two options that
    would gather more votes.

    The following votes were cast:

    callback
    callable
    neither
    callable, callback
    callback, neither

    If there is anything that can be learned from here is that this lack of
    clarity should not be repeated.
    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).
    Irrelevant. That vote happened before the pertinent objections had been
    raised (for instance empty(UNDEFINED_CONSTANT)/isset(UNDEFINED_CONSTANT)
    now returning false/true). And in any case, that voting was superseded by
    the new one.

    --
    Gustavo Lopes
  • Pierre Joye at May 14, 2012 at 5:48 am
    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,
  • Stas Malyshev at May 14, 2012 at 7:02 am
    Hi!
    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 ... :)
    AFAIK 2 of the people voting "both" (myself included) already said they
    are OK with "empty only".

    But in general, what is happening now is exactly what I was concerned
    about when we have started this voting thing - that decision becomes
    matter of formal incidents having nothing to do... well, with anything
    on the merits of the proposal. Support we lack one vote and do not
    implement it - then we didn't implement a feature because somebody who
    could add one crucial vote was on vacation or too busy or missed the
    email. I don't think it's a good situation.
    --
    Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
    SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
    (408)454-6900 ext. 227
  • Pierre Joye at May 14, 2012 at 8:34 am
    hi Stas,
    On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 9:02 AM, Stas Malyshev wrote:
    Hi!
    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 ... :)
    AFAIK 2 of the people voting "both" (myself included) already said they
    are OK with "empty only".
    If the other one can raise his voice, then we are good.

    But in general, what is happening now is exactly what I was concerned
    about when we have started this voting thing - that decision becomes
    matter of formal incidents having nothing to do... well, with anything
    on the merits of the proposal.
    Partially correct but mostly wrong too. Let me explain it below.
    Support we lack one vote and do not
    implement it - then we didn't implement a feature because somebody who
    could add one crucial vote was on vacation or too busy or missed the
    email.
    Right now, one has one month to vote. Yes, the voting vote is only two
    weeks but he can always say his opinion before leaving. As of those
    being too busy during one month to read a RFC and vote, then that's
    bad for them and for php.

    However, the issue we are suffering is not about people being busy or
    being in vacation. The issue is that we are a very few amount of
    active developers. I'd to say maximum 5 for daily to weekly active,
    maximum (and I am very optimist here) 10 for monthly. And last but not
    least, most of the historical contributors are not active anymore, no
    matter how. This is the problem, not the voting.

    So the key is to get more active contributors and we are doing well
    again. Most of the top 5 contributors for this year are new
    contributors (except you and me :). We have to improve that too. But
    we can't stop to move and organize our next releases because some
    legacy developers have moved to other interesting projects (with all
    due respects).

    That being said, I was thinking to send notification emails when a RFC
    is proposed and when it enters the voting phase. A one time email for
    everyone then each developer has to opt out if he does not want these
    notifications. That should help to get some active devs voting while
    they are totally not interested to follow internals (bad but their
    choices).
    I don't think it's a good situation.
    me neither, but I have a different view on it.

    Cheers,
  • Anthony Ferrara at May 14, 2012 at 11:16 am
    Pierre,
    AFAIK 2 of the people voting "both" (myself included) already said they
    are OK with "empty only".
    If the other one can raise his voice, then we are good.
    I had meant to reply to the list, but I had replied to Stas directly.
    I would be happy to change my vote from isset() and empty() to empty()
    only if that's what it would take...

    Anthony
  • Rafael Dohms at May 20, 2012 at 9:03 pm

    On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Anthony Ferrara wrote:

    I had meant to reply to the list, but I had replied to Stas directly.
    I would be happy to change my vote from isset() and empty() to empty()
    only if that's what it would take...

    Anthony
    This would settle it, so in the realm of "action" what can we do now?
    Is there a rule that allows to call for a re-vote?
    Should start a new RFC?
    Or can we just alter the vote and consider this the "end of voting"?

    Sorry, but all this talking is running around in circles, and
    everything has been said. I would like to bring closure to this topic.


    --
    Rafael Dohms
    PHP Evangelist and Community Leader
    http://www.rafaeldohms.com.br
    http://www.phpsp.org.br
  • Stas Malyshev at May 20, 2012 at 9:05 pm
    Hi!
    This would settle it, so in the realm of "action" what can we do now?
    Is there a rule that allows to call for a re-vote?
    Should start a new RFC?
    Or can we just alter the vote and consider this the "end of voting"?
    I think we can just put empty() expression implementation into master
    and be done with it.

    --
    Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
    SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
    (408)454-6900 ext. 227
  • Pierre Joye at May 20, 2012 at 10:44 pm
    hi,

    On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 11:03 PM, Rafael Dohms
    wrote:
    On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Anthony Ferrara wrote:

    I had meant to reply to the list, but I had replied to Stas directly.
    I would be happy to change my vote from isset() and empty() to empty()
    only if that's what it would take...

    Anthony
    This would settle it, so in the realm of "action" what can we do now?
    Is there a rule that allows to call for a re-vote?
    Should start a new RFC?
    Or can we just alter the vote and consider this the "end of voting"?

    Sorry, but all this talking is running around in circles, and
    everything has been said. I would like to bring closure to this topic.
    See the previous mails, as long as other voters agree to change their
    votes to empty only, we are done.

    Cheers,
  • Rafael Dohms at May 20, 2012 at 11:05 pm

    On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 12:44 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:

    See the previous mails, as long as other voters agree to change their
    votes to empty only, we are done.
    If my math does not fail me, we needed one more vote to have the 2/3 mentioned.
    Anthony has changed his vote, i think we are good to go.

    20 votes => 2/3 = 13.3

    So if we round down, the vote originally passed, and in any case
    Anthony makes it 14, so that should resolve any doubts

    Also, for future votes we need to make this rule clear: does 13.3 mean
    we need 13 votes or 14 votes to pass?
    In which case, this whole thread might actually have been for nothing
    since the vote had already passed.

    --
    Rafael Dohms
    PHP Evangelist and Community Leader
    http://www.rafaeldohms.com.br
    http://www.phpsp.org.br
  • Lars Strojny at May 21, 2012 at 8:37 pm
    Hi Rafael,

    hope it’s ok I've reopened the vote temporarily, but you’ve got the missing vote.

    Am 21.05.2012 um 01:05 schrieb Rafael Dohms:
    On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 12:44 AM, Pierre Joye wrote:


    See the previous mails, as long as other voters agree to change their
    votes to empty only, we are done.
    If my math does not fail me, we needed one more vote to have the 2/3 mentioned.
    Anthony has changed his vote, i think we are good to go.

    20 votes => 2/3 = 13.3

    So if we round down, the vote originally passed, and in any case
    Anthony makes it 14, so that should resolve any doubts

    Also, for future votes we need to make this rule clear: does 13.3 mean
    we need 13 votes or 14 votes to pass?
    In which case, this whole thread might actually have been for nothing
    since the vote had already passed.

    --
    Rafael Dohms
    PHP Evangelist and Community Leader
    http://www.rafaeldohms.com.br
    http://www.phpsp.org.br

    --
    PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
    To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
  • Rafael Dohms at May 21, 2012 at 9:18 pm

    On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 10:36 PM, Lars Strojny wrote:
    Hi Rafael,

    hope it’s ok I've reopened the vote temporarily, but you’ve got the missing vote.
    Even better, get this on clean papers. thanks.

    But i would still like Pierre and others involved with voting to clear
    up the point about rounding up or down.

    --
    Rafael Dohms
    PHP Evangelist and Community Leader
    http://www.rafaeldohms.com.br
    http://www.phpsp.org.br
  • Gustavo Lopes at May 21, 2012 at 9:25 pm

    On Mon, 21 May 2012 23:18:03 +0200, Rafael Dohms wrote:
    On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 10:36 PM, Lars Strojny wrote:

    hope it’s ok I've reopened the vote temporarily, but you’ve got the
    missing vote.
    Even better, get this on clean papers. thanks.

    But i would still like Pierre and others involved with voting to clear
    up the point about rounding up or down.
    There is nothing unclear about "a 2/3 majority is required". 2/3 of all
    the votes need not be a integer, but that doesn't mean you can't compare
    it to an integer. If this still doesn't answer your question, please refer
    to how this works in virtually every election in the world.

    --
    Gustavo Lopes
  • Rafael Dohms at May 21, 2012 at 9:48 pm

    On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 11:25 PM, Gustavo Lopes wrote:

    There is nothing unclear about "a 2/3 majority is required". 2/3 of all the
    votes need not be a integer, but that doesn't mean you can't compare it to
    an integer. If this still doesn't answer your question, please refer to how
    this works in virtually every election in the world.
    So we are counting half people now, good i hear Tyrion the Imp going
    around internals, good.

    But great that is an answer, an edgy one with unneeded aggressiveness
    in my opinion, but i guess
    someone had to ask and deal with the attitude.

    I'll just step away again.

    --
    Rafael Dohms
    PHP Evangelist and Community Leader
    http://www.rafaeldohms.com.br
    http://www.phpsp.org.br
  • Johannes Schlüter at May 21, 2012 at 10:06 pm

    On Mon, 2012-05-21 at 23:48 +0200, Rafael Dohms wrote:


    So we are counting half people now, good i hear Tyrion the Imp going
    around internals, good.
    I tried to stay away from voting but well, simple math: Assume 5 votes.
    Then 3 is less then 2/3 of all votes and 4 is "at least 2/3" (more
    mathematical: x >= 2/3 * 5). No need to count half people or such.

    johannes
  • Kris Craig at May 21, 2012 at 10:07 pm

    On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Rafael Dohms wrote:
    On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 11:25 PM, Gustavo Lopes wrote:

    There is nothing unclear about "a 2/3 majority is required". 2/3 of all the
    votes need not be a integer, but that doesn't mean you can't compare it to
    an integer. If this still doesn't answer your question, please refer to how
    this works in virtually every election in the world.
    So we are counting half people now, good i hear Tyrion the Imp going
    around internals, good.

    But great that is an answer, an edgy one with unneeded aggressiveness
    in my opinion, but i guess
    someone had to ask and deal with the attitude.

    I'll just step away again.

    --
    Rafael Dohms
    PHP Evangelist and Community Leader
    http://www.rafaeldohms.com.br
    http://www.phpsp.org.br

    --
    PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
    To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
    I think what Stas was saying is that rounding is not actually necessary
    when 2/3 results in a non-integer because the number of people voting will
    always be an integer regardless. In other words, because the requirement
    is "it must be greater than or equal to" as opposed to just "must be equal
    to," then it's really a non-issue.

    For example, let's say that 10 people are voting. 2/3 majority is
    required. 6 people vote yes and 4 people vote no. That's 60% Because 60%
    < 60.666666...%, the vote fails. On the other hand, if 7 people vote yes
    and 3 vote no, then we're at 70%. And since 70% >= 60.666666...%, the vote
    passes. Notice how, in both cases, we did not need to round either of the
    numbers to do the comparison. It's either greater than or equal to the
    requirement or it's not.

    That being said, yeah the response you got did seem a bit overly hostile
    IMHO.

    --Kris
  • Sanford Whiteman at May 21, 2012 at 10:22 pm
    Ah, this is why one should trust a coder over a butler:

    http://www.ask.com/answers/112530521/5-people-are-voting-what-is-2-3-s-of-a-majority

    Ugh.

    -- S.
  • Kris Craig at May 21, 2012 at 10:39 pm

    On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Sanford Whiteman wrote:

    Ah, this is why one should trust a coder over a butler:


    http://www.ask.com/answers/112530521/5-people-are-voting-what-is-2-3-s-of-a-majority

    Ugh.

    -- S.


    --
    PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
    To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
    Lol well I guess that answers another question I had: What kind of person
    still uses Ask Jeeves?!

    (Answer: A really, really stupid person)

    --Kris
  • Rafael Dohms at May 22, 2012 at 6:49 am
    Awesome, that clear is up pretty well.

    I just wanted to get this well cleared up, and since this vote ad its various
    quirks, why not just sort out all issues once and for all.

    Thanks for the replies.

    --
    Rafael Dohms
    PHP Evangelist and Community Leader
    http://www.rafaeldohms.com.br
    http://www.phpsp.org.br
  • Richard Lynch at May 22, 2012 at 2:46 pm

    On Mon, May 21, 2012 5:22 pm, Sanford Whiteman wrote:
    Ah, this is why one should trust a coder over a butler:

    http://www.ask.com/answers/112530521/5-people-are-voting-what-is-2-3-s-of-a-majority
    Regarding the 2/3 super-majority rule...

    I thought I'd check the non-authorative but always interesting
    wikipedia article...

    Apparently, we are not the only ones confused by edge cases:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermajority
  • Sanford Whiteman at May 22, 2012 at 6:50 pm

    Apparently, we are not the only ones confused by edge cases:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermajority
    Can you point to where there's any suggestion of using the ceiling
    (rounding up) instead of requiring whole persons? In fact, the
    Wikipedia page matter-of-factly says "...two thirds (currently 34) of
    the states...."

    -- S.
  • Kris Craig at May 22, 2012 at 6:56 pm

    On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 11:51 AM, Sanford Whiteman wrote:

    Apparently, we are not the only ones confused by edge cases:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermajority
    Can you point to where there's any suggestion of using the ceiling
    (rounding up) instead of requiring whole persons? In fact, the
    Wikipedia page matter-of-factly says "...two thirds (currently 34) of
    the states...."

    -- S.
    I'm not sure I understand where the conflict is. 2/3 * 50 == 33 1/3.
    Therefore, 33 states would be just below the required 2/3, while 34 states
    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.

    --Kris
  • Sanford Whiteman at May 22, 2012 at 7:05 pm

    I'm not sure I understand where the conflict is. 2/3 * 50 == 33 1/3.
    Therefore, 33 states would be just below the required 2/3, while 34 states
    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 what 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.
  • Richard Lynch at May 22, 2012 at 9:00 pm

    On Tue, May 22, 2012 1:51 pm, Sanford Whiteman wrote:
    Apparently, we are not the only ones confused by edge cases:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermajority
    Can you point to where there's any suggestion of using the ceiling
    (rounding up) instead of requiring whole persons? In fact, the
    Wikipedia page matter-of-factly says "...two thirds (currently 34) of
    the states...."
    I should have been more clear:

    Whether that article addresses rounding up, down or sideways, it's an
    awfully long article for what should be a fairly simple thing...

    I know I started zoning out long before the halfway mark.

    I certainly didn't do the math for every example from every
    country/quorum/entity...

    Actually, if we used the "abstain == no" logic of some bodies, I don't
    think any of our RFCs would pass :-)
  • Sanford Whiteman at May 22, 2012 at 9:29 pm

    Whether that article addresses rounding up, down or sideways, it's an
    awfully long article for what should be a fairly simple thing...
    It does seem long-winded toward the top. I guess it's notable that in
    all that text, it doesn't even note the floor/ceiling concept. I
    interpret the absence as because it's obvious, but you could argue
    (given the inanity of the Ask.com answers) that isn't obvious enough
    to be left out of the "'pedia of record." Maybe someone on Internals
    is also an active Wiki editor.

    -- S.
  • Pierre Joye at May 22, 2012 at 7:27 am
    hi Lars,
    On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 10:36 PM, Lars Strojny wrote:
    Hi Rafael,

    hope it’s ok I've reopened the vote temporarily, but you’ve got the missing vote.
    You have what? That's not that ok actually....

    Cheers,
  • Richard Lynch at May 22, 2012 at 2:35 pm

    On Sun, May 20, 2012 5:44 pm, Pierre Joye wrote:
    On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 11:03 PM, Rafael Dohms
    wrote:
    On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 1:16 PM, Anthony Ferrara
    wrote:
    I had meant to reply to the list, but I had replied to Stas
    directly.
    I would be happy to change my vote from isset() and empty() to
    empty()
    only if that's what it would take...

    Anthony
    This would settle it, so in the realm of "action" what can we do
    now?
    Is there a rule that allows to call for a re-vote?
    Should start a new RFC?
    Or can we just alter the vote and consider this the "end of voting"?

    Sorry, but all this talking is running around in circles, and
    everything has been said. I would like to bring closure to this
    topic.
    See the previous mails, as long as other voters agree to change their
    votes to empty only, we are done.
    I had voted none.

    I really don't care about empty, because it has changed edge cases in
    every major release, so I can't use it.

    Therefore and herewith, I officially change my "none" vote to "empty
    only"

    Please put a fork in it and call it done.
  • Stas Malyshev at May 13, 2012 at 8:20 pm
    Hi!
    I just closed the vote for this RFC. The result (see
    https://wiki.php.net/rfc/empty_isset_exprs#vote) is:

    * Both empty() and isset(): 3
    * Only empty(): 13
    * None: 4
    Low turnout is kind of disappointing - either people are not interested
    in this feature or don't care in general. Since we have only 3 people
    voting "both", we should ask them what they prefer. I, for example,
    prefer "only empty" to "none".

    --
    Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
    SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
    (408)454-6900 ext. 227
  • Kris Craig at May 13, 2012 at 9:37 pm

    On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 1:20 PM, Stas Malyshev wrote:

    Hi!
    I just closed the vote for this RFC. The result (see
    https://wiki.php.net/rfc/empty_isset_exprs#vote) is:

    * Both empty() and isset(): 3
    * Only empty(): 13
    * None: 4
    Low turnout is kind of disappointing - either people are not interested
    in this feature or don't care in general. Since we have only 3 people
    voting "both", we should ask them what they prefer. I, for example,
    prefer "only empty" to "none".

    --
    Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
    SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
    (408)454-6900 ext. 227

    --
    PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
    To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
    This is exactly what I was afraid of. The current voting process doesn't
    account for multi-question votes like this, so there's no consensus on how
    they should be counted (i.e. do you add all the "yes" votes and divide by
    the total or take the question with the most "yes" votes and divide that
    one by the total?). I think this would be a good time for us to reconsider
    my earlier suggestion of drafting an RFC to amend and clarify the voting
    process to allow for such scenarios.

    Right now, there's obviously no consensus on how to count the votes, so I
    think the only proper course of action would be to nullify this vote
    entirely and start over with just a simple "yes" or "no" question and
    nothing else. Since there does seem to be wide agreement that it should
    only be empty(), I'd say just limit the scope to that.

    --Kris
  • Pierre Joye at May 13, 2012 at 9:57 pm
    hi,
    On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 11:37 PM, Kris Craig wrote:

    This is exactly what I was afraid of.  The current voting process doesn't
    account for multi-question votes like this
    It does. But one has to select multiple choices votes too, if he does
    not want to fail because some voted for one option while they would
    have chosen two.

    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.

    The previous votes taken as an example is not comparable. We decided
    to take the one we already use in the documentation, if I remember
    correctly.

    Cheers,
  • Stas Malyshev at May 13, 2012 at 10:12 pm
    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
  • Sean Coates at May 13, 2012 at 10:45 pm

    which raises the question,
    if most of the PHP group doesn't care enough to vote, does it mean it is
    a bad feature?

    I think the disinterest is more generalized than this particular vote. As far as I can tell, only 3½ members of the PHP Group actually still participate in the PHP community in any way (not to diminish their huge contributions in the past).

    S
  • Ferenc Kovacs at May 13, 2012 at 10:49 pm

    On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 12:45 AM, Sean Coates wrote:

    which raises the question,
    if most of the PHP group doesn't care enough to vote, does it mean it is
    a bad feature?

    I think the disinterest is more generalized than this particular vote. As
    far as I can tell, only 3½ members of the PHP Group actually still
    participate in the PHP community in any way (not to diminish their huge
    contributions in the past).

    S
    can I ask how did you come up with that number, and who is the half man? :)


    --
    Ferenc Kovács
    @Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu
  • Stas Malyshev at May 13, 2012 at 11:22 pm
    Hi!
    can I ask how did you come up with that number, and who is the half man? :)
    Tyrion Lannister?
    (sorry, couldn't help it)
    --
    Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
    SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
    (408)454-6900 ext. 227
  • Clint Priest at May 13, 2012 at 11:31 pm
    Ironically enough, he's probably the only "whole man" of the Lannisters really.
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Stas Malyshev
    Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2012 6:23 PM
    To: Ferenc Kovacs
    Cc: PHP internals
    Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [VOTE] Vote change for empty() RFC

    Hi!
    can I ask how did you come up with that number, and who is the half
    man? :)
    Tyrion Lannister?
    (sorry, couldn't help it)
    --
    Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
    SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
    (408)454-6900 ext. 227

    --
    PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
  • Sean Coates at May 14, 2012 at 2:35 am
    can I ask how did you come up with that number, and who is the half man? :)
    Rasmus, Andi, and Ze'ev. Andrei works with something PHP-related, sort of, still, and is only involved on occasion, so I counted him for half.

    The others are all names from Internets past (pardon me if I'm wrong, but I haven't seen most of them around in a long time).

    S
  • Kris Craig at May 14, 2012 at 4:12 am

    On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 7:35 PM, Sean Coates wrote:

    can I ask how did you come up with that number, and who is the half man?
    :)

    Rasmus, Andi, and Ze'ev. Andrei works with something PHP-related, sort of,
    still, and is only involved on occasion, so I counted him for half.
    If he's half-man, what's the other half? Goat? Fish? Bear-pig?

    --Kris
  • Pierre Joye at May 14, 2012 at 5:43 am
    hi Sean,
    On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 12:45 AM, Sean Coates wrote:
    which raises the question,
    if most of the PHP group doesn't care enough to vote, does it mean it is
    a bad feature?

    I think the disinterest is more generalized than this particular vote. As far as I can tell, only 3½ members of the PHP Group actually still participate in the PHP community in any way (not to diminish their huge contributions in the past).
    The PHP group is totally irrelevant in this process, with all due
    respect. It is about php.net developers.

    Cheers,
  • Stas Malyshev at May 14, 2012 at 7:04 am
    Hi!
    The PHP group is totally irrelevant in this process, with all due
    respect. It is about php.net developers.
    Which is what I meant - most of the developers (or committers) did not
    vote at all.
    --
    Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
    SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
    (408)454-6900 ext. 227
  • Lester Caine at May 14, 2012 at 7:31 am

    Stas Malyshev wrote:
    The PHP group is totally irrelevant in this process, with all due
    respect. It is about php.net developers.
    Which is what I meant - most of the developers (or committers) did not
    vote at all.
    Or simply don't have voting rights ...
    Personally I would prefer to see 'empty()' remain limited to real variables.

    --
    Lester Caine - G8HFL
    -----------------------------
    Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact
    L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk
    EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/
    Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk//
    Firebird - http://www.firebirdsql.org/index.php
  • Stas Malyshev at May 14, 2012 at 8:01 am
    Hi!
    Or simply don't have voting rights ...
    Personally I would prefer to see 'empty()' remain limited to real variables.
    AFAIK all committers have voting rights on wiki.
    --
    Stanislav Malyshev, Software Architect
    SugarCRM: http://www.sugarcrm.com/
    (408)454-6900 ext. 227

Related Discussions

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2022 Grokbase