Hello! On Sun, Jun 15, 2025 at 1:33 PM Daniel Kesselberg <m...@danielkesselberg.de> wrote: > > Hi, > > Thanks for all your feedback on the RFC. > > I've updated the RFC to incorporate most of your feedback: > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/num_available_processors > > 1) The limitation, that the CPU affinity mask is ignored > 2) The naming discussion
I'm curious, is there a reason why you feel that introducing a new namespace should be under "Future Scope", instead of a part of this RFC? I expect there would be some bikeshedding over the namespace name, but there is / will be some bikeshedding around a non-namespaced name in the first place, so it feels like a good opportunity to embrace namespaces in the standard library. I ask this because I've been very slightly interested in introducing a Curl namespace since the "Throwable Hierarchy Policy for Extensions" (https://wiki.php.net/rfc/extension_exceptions) RFC and my own personal "Persistent curl share handle" (https://wiki.php.net/rfc/curl_share_persistence_improvement) RFC. > How do we continue? ;) I see there are various ideas how to approach it, > is that something you would vote (let's do a or b) on, or how does that > work? Relating to my above question, if you're open to it, I would be happy to work with you on your RFC to (a) figure out a good namespace name and (b) update the RFC to match.
