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 PHP as >>well. > > Happy to hear it :) > > >> - Instead of using backticks, use `<php>sleep()</php>` for inline and > `<PHP>…</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 > https://github.com/divinity76/stuff/blob/phprfc/2024/sleep_function_float_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 anything >>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%? 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
