On Tue, May 11, 2021 at 6:58 AM Go Kudo <zeriyo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi internals. > > I previously proposed an object scope RNG implementation inside. > However, the RFC was rejected after a vote. > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/object_scope_prng > > Vote: https://externals.io/message/113888 > Discussion: https://externals.io/message/112819 > > As per my previous proposal, PHP is currently in a very unclear state > regarding the random number implementation. > > So I would like to ask a few questions. > > - Do you think that PHP needs an object-scoped random number > implementation? And why? > - If the API in the previous RFC was improved and voted on again, would you > be willing to vote for it? > - What issues do you think should have been resolved between proposal and > ballot in the previous RFC? > > I would like a variety of opinions. > > Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version) > > Regards, > Go Kudo
I would like to see an extension that doesn't contain the backwards-compatibility breaking changes in the RFC. Every function, type, and constant should be namespaced according to the extension. For instance, if you want to call it `ext/rng`, then the namespace can be `rng` or `Rng` or `RNG`.No exceptions for now! The previous proposal had namespace things, and un-namespaced things, and breaking changes, and I don't think that made a cohesive proposal. Also, php-src generally doesn't suffix interfaces with the name "Interface". Please provide another name for `RNGInterface`, like `RandomNumberGenerator` or `RNG`. -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php
