Morning, I waited for a day for you to take action, you failed to do that.
To protect PHP, and your idea, I have moved the RFC back to discussion, I would rather you had done that yourself. Please do not attempt to bring this topic to vote until outstanding issues are resolved, and until there is a clear consensus about the implementation we are going to use. Cheres Joe On Mon, Jun 11, 2018 at 2:17 AM, Levi Morrison <le...@php.net> wrote: > Replying to Joe's email because I didn't get the original. > > On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 1:09 PM Joe Watkins <pthre...@pthreads.org> wrote: > > > > This is not ready for voting, please stop the vote. > > > > Bringing stuff to vote that is incomplete, where there is no clear > > consensus, is dangerous. > > > > > > On Sun, Jun 10, 2018 at 2:09 PM, Haitao Lv <i...@lvht.net> wrote: > > > > > Hello Internals, > > > > > > The RFC for fiber is now open for a vote. The RFC is available at > > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/fiber. > > > > > > Voting will be open until June 22th, 2018. > > > > > > Thank you. > > I don't think I've listed my complaints yet although I believe others > already covered these: > > 1. I don't like `Fiber::` referring to the fiber running. I would > prefer it being passed as a parameter. > 2. As written and implemented this is not sufficiently different > from generators. If fibers supported suspending/resuming C code as > well then it may be powerful enough to justify it, however... > 3. I don't feel this low-level building block is proven. > Theoretically we should be able to build async/await functionality > with it, which is I believe is the real goal. However, until I've seen > it built, demonstrated, and critiqued I don't think we can claim the > the low-level building block is sound. > > Sorry for not providing feedback sooner. > > Levi Morrison >
