On November 13, 2003 05:54 pm, you wrote:Again, this is breaking our naming conventions. (yeah I know there's legacy
stuff).
How about time_nanosleeop()?
Heh, I can't ever seem to get the names right. That said, I think in this case
it would be better to keep the function name as is. So, far when making a PHP
functions, which are wrappers around a C functions, the C function names were
retained. Consider existing sleep() functions, majority of string functions,
etc...
I agree with Ilia this time. I don't see a significant reason to rename it to a fancy name. Anyway, I don't much like the situation that those two functions, usleep() and nanosleep() are not always available in every build.
Moriyoshi
-- PHP CVS Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php