Re: Allow sleep() to accept non-integer values

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