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. > Implemented using nanosleep which is not guaranteed to be available > everywhere. Please just use usleep if you need more accuracy than seconds. Having a function that behaves differently based on different platforms is a bad idea. Changing a function to have surprising behaviour just to avoid using a different function, that is already available, is a really bad tradeoff. cheers Dan Ack -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php
