Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:122573
Message-ID: <5f65ade1-9131-4244-ad0f-06dc1a82d917@bastelstu.be>
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2024 19:01:58 +0100
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] int|float for sleep? sleep(0.1) => sleep 0.1 seconds
To: Hans Henrik Bergan <divinity76@gmail.com>,
 PHP Internals List <internals@lists.php.net>
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>
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <CAJmy8YHMFv3jriQeic1rBm17DFqzsLSAkYeB_kWmw87XYJd3_Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: tim@bastelstu.be (=?UTF-8?Q?Tim_D=C3=BCsterhus?=)

Hi

On 3/5/24 14:09, Hans Henrik Bergan wrote:
> 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 https://github.com/divinity76/stuff/blob/phprfc/2024/sleep_function_float_support.md

To set my email in context: For me visuals play an important role in the 
overall presentation of an RFC. If it's not properly formatted, it's 
harder to read and harder to understand the RFC. Proper formatting also 
is some indicator that the author actually cares about the RFC instead 
of just throwing stuff over the fence and letting others figure out the 
details. This one is simple enough and it's certainly not something that 
makes me vote “No” out of spite, but perhaps this is something to keep 
in mind for future RFCs.

>> 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 don't know how to make it return 192 on Windows.. Anyone know?

My remark was not just about Windows (I can't advice here either, I 
don't do Windows), adding a short *nix explanation of when sleep will 
return earlier than expected would be helpful as well. That's likely the 
more common case anyway.

>> 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.)

Complicated voting options also risk the RFC getting rejected, 
especially if certain combinations of voting options are non-sense (such 
as 1: yes, 2: yes, 3: no). Personally I'd rather have no change at all, 
instead of a half-baked internally inconsistent change.

>> Don't forgot to open up a dedicated explicit discussion thread once you move it into the "Discussion" phase.
> 
> How would I even do that? Linking to
> https://externals.io/message/122388 isn't sufficient?

Once you are happy with the RFC contents, instead of replying to this 
existing thread, send a fresh email to the list, titled "RFC: Support 
for Floats in Sleep Function", in there link the RFC and this discussion 
thread and say that the discussion period is starting now. This will 
ensure it will pop up as a fresh email for the folks who already ignored 
the subthread, because they were not interested in the pre-RFC 
discussion while stuff is still in flux.

Best regards
Tim Düsterhus