Hello. > - The glossary in "Overview" is good, but probably incomplete. The > examples there, with no description, do not help much and could be > removed, imo.
Do I understand correctly that I should remove the examples without descriptions? Or would it be better to add descriptions to them? Although the last examples might not be very illustrative or easy to grasp. > the "Scheduler and Reactor" section does not explain much over what's in the > glossary. What else do you think could be added? The internal implementation doesn’t belong in the scope of the RFC, it can change. They don’t have any special API in the PHP userland. The reactor can only be used directly at the C/C++ level, meaning within a PHP extension. It’s also intentionally impossible to directly affect the Scheduler’s behavior. > One question. Seems like we don't really need delay() function. Why not > add an argument to the suspend() function? I think it would make the > code easier to understand, considering seeing suspend(1000) versus > delay(1000). That didn’t occur to me. Interesting idea. You’re saying it would make the code more readable. But wouldn’t it be confusing since the functions have slightly different semantic purposes? As a non-native English speaker, I don’t really feel the difference between delay and suspend. They seem close in meaning. But is that the case for others? Thanks, Ed.
