>
> > > Again, I personally don't understand why this could bypass the RFC
> > process, as multiple people have already, me included, voiced their
> > disagreement with this change.
> >
> > This was proposed by Nikita Popov in his comment
> >
>
> Nikita is just one of the members. If other members
On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 at 14:55, Michael Voříšek - ČVUT FEL <
voris...@fel.cvut.cz> wrote:
> > Again, I personally don't understand why this could bypass the RFC
> process, as multiple people have already, me included, voiced their
> disagreement with this change.
>
> This was proposed by Nikita Popo
Again, I personally don't understand why this could bypass the RFC process, as
multiple people have already, me included, voiced their disagreement with this
change.
This was proposed by Nikita Popov in his comment
Secondly this change introduces another inconsistency, why can sleep accept a
On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 at 14:16, Michael Voříšek - ČVUT FEL <
voris...@fel.cvut.cz> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> thank you for your comments, based on them, I fixed these:
>
> - usleep is now used as a fallback as well, if interrupted, remaining
> time is measured using microtime, so return value is alw
Apologies for the double email, my client did something funcky.
On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 at 14:22, G. P. B. wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 at 14:15, Michael Voříšek - ČVUT FEL <
> voris...@fel.cvut.cz> wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> thank you for your comments, based on them, I fixed these:
>>
>> - us
On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 at 14:15, Michael Voříšek - ČVUT FEL <
voris...@fel.cvut.cz> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> thank you for your comments, based on them, I fixed these:
>
> - usleep is now used as a fallback as well, if interrupted, remaining
> time is measured using microtime, so return value is alw
Hi everyone,
thank you for your comments, based on them, I fixed these:
- usleep is now used as a fallback as well, if interrupted, remaining
time is measured using microtime, so return value is always available
- for BC, if not interrupted, return value remains to be 0 (integer
zero)
No
> 2020年8月11日 下午6:39，Dan Ackroyd 写道：
>
> Michael Voříšek wrote:
>
>> Another reason is that sleep(0.1); is silently accepted now (even with
> strict types enabled),
>
> That appears to not be true: https://3v4l.org/7YbqX
>
> Rowan wrote:
>> Unless there are problems with the implementation,
Hi Michael,
On 11/08/2020 12:39, Dan Ackroyd wrote:
> Changing a function to have surprising behaviour just to avoid using a
> different function, that is already available, is a really bad
> tradeoff.
I agree.
function mysleep(float $s): void {
usleep($s * 100);
}
You're welcome ;-)
On 11.08.2020 at 10:53, Rowan Tommins wrote:
> Unless there are problems with the implementation, this seems like a
> straight-forward win.
Not necessarily a problem, but it has to be considered that POSIX
mandates that nanosleep() shall fail, if "the rqtp argument specified a
nanosecond value […
Björn Larsson wrote:
> Given this unexpected behaviour, one could almost see it as a bug.
This isn't a suddenly noticed new bug. That code has worked like that
since the sleep function was committed twenty-two years ago or for
five years since the release of PHP 7 and the weak/strict RFC
continued
On Tue, 11 Aug 2020 at 13:03, Michael Voříšek - ČVUT FEL <
voris...@fel.cvut.cz> wrote:
> > Another reason is that sleep(0.1); is silently accepted now (even with
> strict types enabled),
> >
> > That appears to not be true: https://3v4l.org/7YbqX
>
> corrected, should be "without strict types ena
Another reason is that sleep(0.1); is silently accepted now (even with strict types enabled),
That appears to not be true: https://3v4l.org/7YbqX
corrected, should be "without strict types enabled" -
https://3v4l.org/A2olN
"even with strict type enabled" statement in BC section remains valid
Den 2020-08-11 kl. 10:53, skrev Rowan Tommins:
On Tue, 11 Aug 2020 at 08:31, Michael Voříšek - ČVUT FEL <
voris...@fel.cvut.cz> wrote:
I am the author of https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/5961 , please
provide feedback.
This idea makes a lot of sense to me as a user (I'll leave comments o
Michael Voříšek wrote:
> Another reason is that sleep(0.1); is silently accepted now (even with
strict types enabled),
That appears to not be true: https://3v4l.org/7YbqX
Rowan wrote:
> Unless there are problems with the implementation, this seems like a
straight-forward win.
>From the PR.
> Im
On Tue, 11 Aug 2020 at 08:31, Michael Voříšek - ČVUT FEL <
voris...@fel.cvut.cz> wrote:
> I am the author of https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/5961 , please
> provide feedback.
>
This idea makes a lot of sense to me as a user (I'll leave comments on the
implementation to those with more C expe
Hi everyone,
I am the author of https://github.com/php/php-src/pull/5961 , please
provide feedback.
All details should be in the description, also, please advise if we can
consider it as a small change not requiring RFC as Nikita proposed in
his comment.
With kind regards / Mit freundliche
17 matches
Mail list logo
