Re: [VOTE] Support optional suffix parameter in tempnam

On Tue, Aug 29, 2023, at 1:57 AM, Levi Morrison via internals wrote: > On Sun, Aug 27, 2023 at 4:20 AM Tim Düsterhus <tim@bastelstu.be> wrote: >> >> Hi Athos >> >> On 8/27/23 04:02, Athos Ribeiro wrote: >> > I am moving this RFC [1] to the voting phase. Voting will be open for the >> > next 2 weeks, until September 10th, as per >> > https://wiki.php.net/rfc. >> > >> > [1] https://wiki.php.net/rfc/tempnam-suffix-v2 >> > >> >> I find this a useful feature in general, but I believe it not working on >> Windows completely nullifies the "could even provide more context for >> software processing such files" argument in favor of this feature. It >> will be unexpected for users if their code completely fails to work on >> Windows, because the suffix is ignored. >> >> For that reason I voted "no". >> >> Best regards >> Tim Düsterhus >> >> -- >> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List >> To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php > > > I have voted no for a similar reason. It would be nice if there were > os-specific packages in core that handled these kinds of things, > because the functionality is definitely useful. But if you call an API > like FileSystem\Os\Unix\tempnam then at least the platform > specific > behavior is obvious and understood. I did as well. I am in favor of the functionality, but having it silently not-work on Windows is not a good approach. That may mean a larger refactoring of tempnam is a good next step, to fix the issues noted in the RFC and then support Windows consistently. I would support that, and including a suffix either with that or as a follow-up. (Side note: If messing about there, making prefix optional would also be wise so that it can be skipped via named args.) --Larry Garfield