No objections here. On Mar 22, 2016 3:23 PM, "Stanislav Malyshev" <smalys...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi! > > > be in the spirit of what was voted on to keep it (at least as an alias > for > > random_bytes()). However, that was not covered by what everyone voted > for. > > How would you like to proceed? > > I'd say keep it - either as an alias of as a function, doesn't matter. > It looks like common sense BC measure and doesn't seem to hurt anything. > If we'll be moving whole extension out to PECL, we could keep this > particular function as an alias. > > -- > Stas Malyshev > smalys...@gmail.com >
