Re: [RFC][DISCUSSION] Improve uniqid() uniqueness

Hi Kazuo, On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 11:46 PM, Kazuo Oishi <kazuo@o-ishi.jp> wrote: >>> IMO, improving it (generate better semi-unique ID) is not important >>> enoungh to introduce unnecessary BC break. (Why returning string length >>> is changed?) >> >> It cannot not produce unique ID by default as name "uniqid()" implies. >> Reason is described in the RFC. Please read RFC because it's the >> official proposal. > > I had read it, of course. But I could not understand why you chose BC > break way. IMHO, 10 bits (about a million) entropy is not considered enough entropy, do you? How serious BC is? It's much less impact than using mt_rand() all over the code. i.e. rand() and mt_rand() is predictable random generator. Regards, -- Yasuo Ohgaki yohgaki@ohgaki.net