Updated RFC
* Removed proposal to replace (mt_)rand with an alternative algorithm
as many have expressed concerns with this.
* Clarified that the output of mt_rand _appears_ to be high quality as-is
* Added that the old mt_rand functionality will be available at
runtime via `mt_rand_mode()`
I'll
Hi Leigh,
I need to change stance wrt MT.
On 6/16/16, 2:31 PM, "Leigh" wrote:
>I get your point, but most people probably use mt_rand() because "it's
>better than rand". mt_rand is also incredibly slow and has a huge state
>when compared to modern algorithms. I should probably note the
>perfor
RFC updated to include:
* A note about mt_rand()s poor performance
* Separate votes for proposals so we can at least get the security fixes
through
* Updated vote from 50% to 2/3 as it does cause a BC issue.
I should also state that mt_rand is easily implementable in userland, so
the correct/legac
On Wed, 15 Jun 2016 at 00:08 Tom Worster wrote:
> On 6/14/16 12:46 PM, Leigh wrote:
>
> > The RFC can be found here: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/rng_fixes
>
> Hi Leigh,
>
> Thanks for putting this together. I am strongly pro on two points and
> moderately contra on the other two. I'd prefer separate
On 15.06.2016 at 01:08, Tom Worster wrote:
> On 6/14/16 12:46 PM, Leigh wrote:
>
>> The RFC can be found here: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/rng_fixes
>
> Thanks for putting this together. I am strongly pro on two points and
> moderately contra on the other two. I'd prefer separated votes, even
> tho
On 6/14/16 12:46 PM, Leigh wrote:
The RFC can be found here: https://wiki.php.net/rfc/rng_fixes
Hi Leigh,
Thanks for putting this together. I am strongly pro on two points and
moderately contra on the other two. I'd prefer separated votes, even
though I don't have a vote. I numbered the 4 b
