> 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
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, t
> 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 pertai
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 11:51 AM, Sanford Whiteman <
swhitemanlistens-softw...@cypressintegrated.com> 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
> (r
> 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 (curren
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 inte
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,
--
Pierre
@pierrejoye | http://blog.thepimp.net | http://www.libgd.org
-
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.p
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Sanford Whiteman <
swhitemanlistens-softw...@cypressintegrated.com> 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 Interna
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
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 t
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
m
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 wo
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 invol
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 rou
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 on
> * None of them should accept expressions
>
>
just to be clear, this means keeping the current behavior as is.
--
Ferenc Kovács
@Tyr43l - http://tyrael.hu
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
18 matches
Mail list logo
