in reply to Overzealous considerations and broken mechanisms.

Why was this post considered?

Because humans make mistakes, I think. Luckily others thought the same as you, and voted for "keep". So the consideration mechanism seems to work.

Why is it still considered after (currently) 16 people have voted?

Because none of the Janitors got around to it, I guess.

But I don't think it hurts in any way, unless you want to write another consideration - in which case you'd probably /msg the Janitors.

Perl 6 - links to (nearly) everything that is Perl 6.
  • Comment on Re: Overzealous considerations and broken mechanisms.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Overzealous considerations and broken mechanisms.
by BrowserUk (Patriarch) on Apr 09, 2010 at 16:13 UTC
    Because humans make mistakes,

    One or two I could understand, but 45% of the voters? Be interesting to see the list of voters.

    Because none of the Janitors got around to it, I guess.

    Oh. I though that considerations went away automatically if the voting indicated such. I guess I miss the point of the voting mechanism.

    But I don't think it hurts in any way,

    Really? I though I vaguely remembered that there were some specific consequences of consideration. Visibility?

    Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
    "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
    In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
[reply]
      Oh. I though that considerations went away automatically if the voting indicated such. I guess I miss the point of the voting mechanism.

      As far as I understand, the only automatic consequences of voting are reaping. For all other cases, the voting ballot shows the intervening janitor what other monks think about the consideration. See How do I use the power of consideration responsibly?: Consideration amounts to a suggestion that janitors "fix" something.

      Really? I though I vaguely remembered that there were some specific consequences of consideration. Visibility?

      Afaict only approval, front paging and reaping affect visibility, not a consideration as such.

      Perl 6 - links to (nearly) everything that is Perl 6.
[reply]

      I had to consider the vote for a few minutes.

      The title is certainly odd (iterating over a single item?). On inspection, the question is not about the arrays, so the suggested title doesn't fit either.

      So, in the end, I think a better title would be "Iterating over characters in a string". And then comes the question of whether it would be worth considering.

      I probably would have said no, but given the evident confusion currently, it might actually be worth doing.

[reply]
        The title is certainly odd (iterating over a single item?).

        I guess we come from different backgrounds. I've never seen a string as a "single item".

        I can't think of any language that doesn't allow you to iterate over a string.

        Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
        "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
        In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.
[reply]

In Section Perl Monks Discussion