Re: [RFC] [Under Discussion] Random Extension 4.0
| From: | Mel Dafert | Date: | Thu, 24 Feb 2022 09:09:47 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: [RFC] [Under Discussion] Random Extension 4.0 | ||
| References: | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 | Groups: | php.internals |
| Request: | Send a blank email to internals+get-117134@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
On 24 February 2022 09:47:39 CET, Go Kudo <g-kudo@colopl.co.jp> wrote:
>
>Hi
>
>RFC has been updated. Is this up to the required standard?
>https://wiki.php.net/rfc/rng_extension
>
>I acknowledge that the previous RFC may have been difficult to discuss. If
>the problem has been solved, I would like to make another ML-wide
>announcement and wait for two weeks from there.
>
>I added PCG64 because according to the RNG experts, there seems to be a
>mild conflict between Xorshiro256 and PCG64. Also, as mentioned in the RFC,
>Rust and NumPy also implement PCG64.
>
>In order to verify the feasibility of PCG64, we created a PoC in C. So far,
>it seems to work fine.
>https://github.com/zeriyoshi/pcg64_example
>
>Regards,
>Go Kudo
Hello,
Two small nits:
- The "Backward Incompatible Changes" section is missing the fact that
\Random\Randomizer will be reserved.
- In the definition of Randomizer in the "Proposal" section, there is a typo:
function getBytes(int $legnth) should be $length instead.
To me, this RFC looks very good so far - I don't have a vote however.
Regards,
Mel