StandingVerdict

What the judge said of one call under one grant (greenhouse decisions/0615). Three answers, and they must not be confused: the grant does not name this call (it is nobody's refusal — the call goes on to whatever judged it before); it names the call and refuses it; it names the call and lets it pass. A verdict never grants, widens or restores anything. {@see StandingJudge::among()} has a fourth of its own, and {@see StandingJudge::judge()} never gives it: the grant does not name the call as it is spelled, is STOPPED, and may be the one that names it — `stopped_beside`. It is a refusal, and `named()` answers true for it. `reason` is the stable word for the failure, for a host that words its own refusals or translates them; `sentence` is the English one, written for whoever is reading the refusal.

public static function pass(string $sentence, array $cited): self

The call passes, on these receipts.

Parameters

public static function refuse(Milpa\Command\Standing\StandingCheck $failed, string $reason, string $sentence): self

The call stops at this check.

Parameters

public function passes(): bool

Whether every check passed.

public function named(): bool

Whether this is a grant's answer ABOUT this call — false means the grant does not name it as it is spelled: nobody's refusal, and the call goes on to whatever judged it before. A STOP BESIDE THE CALL answers true (`stopped_beside`, which only {@see StandingJudge::among()} gives): the grant does not name the call exactly, and refuses it all the same. So «false» from {@see StandingJudge::judge()} does not say that no stop stands in the way — that is `among()`'s to say.