Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:122572
Feedback-ID: i8414410d:Fastmail
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.11.0-alpha0-208-g3f1d79aedb-fm-20240301.002-g3f1d79ae
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <b14fa7e8-5d6b-4125-8ff1-95fef05142b9@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAJmy8YHMFv3jriQeic1rBm17DFqzsLSAkYeB_kWmw87XYJd3_Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAK7R4azyh4Yi6NjYFLwD_9BMeH9TD8YmTxQ46cn96Z7cCVy-eA@mail.gmail.com>
 <A813DBD2-219F-404C-AB67-AD5ECA0124C2@gmail.com>
 <CAJmy8YHOCkvEec1WQbjzAomRwmU3H3+wqfoz4UVXcMmE-kb8uw@mail.gmail.com>
 <7d05d51f-f301-4d62-b1c0-83e6a2e0632e@bastelstu.be>
 <CAJmy8YHMFv3jriQeic1rBm17DFqzsLSAkYeB_kWmw87XYJd3_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2024 17:43:04 +0000
To: "php internals" <internals@lists.php.net>
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] int|float for sleep? sleep(0.1) => sleep 0.1 seconds
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: larry@garfieldtech.com ("Larry Garfield")

On Tue, Mar 5, 2024, at 1:09 PM, Hans Henrik Bergan wrote:
> Voting has now been simplified to 3x  no/php 8.4/php 9.0 questions.
> (I actually would've preferred the original 6, would have been
> unambiguous if people are supposed to checkbox only 8.4 or both 8.4
> and 9.0, and would have been easier to see the % of people who voted
> only 9.0, I think. But I don't care enough about it to actually fight
> for it, and multiple people requested it be reduced to 3, so let's go
> with that :) )
>
>>That said, thanks for making this, it's something I'd like to see in P=
HP as well.
>
> Happy to hear it :)
>
>
>> - Instead of using backticks, use `<php>sleep()</php>` for inline and
> `<PHP>=E2=80=A6</PHP>` for multi-line snippets. This comes with syntax
> highlighting and documentation links.
>>(...)
>> - It would help readability if you'd use additional headlines for each
> of the three sub-proposals within the Proposal section.
>>
>
> I don't want to spend too much effort on nitpicks, but if someone
> volunteers to improve it, I'd be happy to add it, in which case please
> send a PR to=20
> https://github.com/divinity76/stuff/blob/phprfc/2024/sleep_function_fl=
oat_support.md
>
>> For (2) it would help if you'd explain what it means for sleep() to be
> interrupted and how this can happen. I believe this is signal-handling
> related, but writing it out explicitly for the folks that didn't yet
> encounter it would probably make sense.
>
> I'm not an expert, but when researching this on Windows 10 + PHP 8.3.2,
> I couldn't actually get it to return 192. (nor return anything except =
0):
> - When sending a WM_CLOSE message (equivalent to `taskkill /IM
> php.exe`), it was just completely ignored: PHP kept sleeping.
> - When doing a TerminateProcess() call (equivalent to `taskkill /IM
> php.exe /F`), PHP was just terminated, sleep never returned.
> - When sending a CTRL_C_EVENT (equivalent to ctrl+C), PHP just
> terminated, sleep never returned.
> - When sending a CTRL_BREAK_EVENT (equivalent to ctrl+Break), PHP just
> terminated, sleep never returned.
>
> I don't know how to make it return 192 on Windows.. Anyone know?
>
>>For the "Unaffected PHP Functionality" you could just spell out that a=
nything that is not the sleep() function will be unaffected
>
> meh, someone else pointed out that the irrelevant sections could be
> removed, I removed the "Unaffected PHP Functionality" section (along
> with 2-3 others)
>
>> I'd just put a single "Do all of this in the next minor" vote there. =
All
>>of the suggested improvements make sense to me and the breaking changes
>>are mostly theoretical.
>
> meh, I don't want to risk the RFC getting rejected because too many
> people thought it should be done in next.major instead of next.minor,
> let's keep both next.minor + next.major vote options. (You're probably
> right, I predict a majority vote for next.minor for all 3, but i'll
> keep the vote options just in case.)

A 3 way up-down vote doesn't make sense.  What happens if none of the 3 =
options reaches 66%? =20

The viable options here are a single RCV vote (which we've done before),=
 or a single "Should we do this" vote that requires 66%, followed by a "=
when should we do this" vote with 2 options, majority wins.

--Larry Garfield