php version:php4-STABLE-200212101230
apache: 2.0.43
os/platform:solaris 9/sparc
compiler: gcc 3.2
I ran configure with
./configure \
--prefix=${ROOT} \
--with-apxs2=/${ROOT}/bin/apxs \
--with-config-file-path=${ROOT}/conf \
By special request:
These are the pro's and contra's to the current proposal currently known
with me.
(see: http://www.A-Eskwadraat.nl/~jeroen/rand/ )
###Pro's:
* Hide seeding and such from the php-programmer
* All randomness controllable, with clear syntax.
* The choice-for-algorithm should
Jeroen:
It would probably help the discussion a lot if you would sort
through all of the comments on your page, decide which are valid and
which are not, and then rewrite the proposal. I can't seem to follow
which comments are being accepted and which are being discarded.
--
PHP
Hi all,
There has been a bit of discussion about rand(). I really appreciate that,
though I would have preferred if it was held BEFORE the changes I (tried to)
make.
Okay, back to business.
By special request, as short as possible:
(I assume you've read the latest proposal, if not, go to
Hm, I notice there has been a huge discussion on php-dev, I think I'm going
to read it first... My two previous mails were sent without having read the
whole discussion.
As I was tought, you shouldn't 'conclude' a discussion before everyone is
heard, and I wasn't able to read and/or reply to
PS: Egon, go read my reply when you asked that the first time.
Wasn't I
clear? It was in plain English though...
I have only asked you, why have you deleted the comments.
It was in my mail:
- I DID NOT REMOVE THEM
Ich habe den nicht weggeholt!!!
I just MOVED them. That was
On Mon, 3 Sep 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am really furious now, and this is why:
* People here seem to read things here VERY selectively. On August 4th I
submitted a first proposal, and Rasmus (and ONLY Rasmus) had some problems
with it, being that this would break BC if ppl rely on
I am really furious now, and this is why:
* People here seem to read things here VERY selectively. On August 4th I
submitted a first proposal, and Rasmus (and ONLY Rasmus) had some problems
with it, being that this would break BC if ppl rely on the reproducibilty of
rand() sequences. THAT WAS
Ok, We're now in a situation that has to be resolved. I think there are 3
issues:
- The way php-dev behaved was flawed. While there's truth in what Sterling
said about opensource projects, I have to say that the amount Jeroen put
into the RFC about the subject is not very common. Thus, I
Howdy,
I have a few problems with the latest random number related commits,
most importantly being the quality of the underlying code, rather
than some of the changes it implements (which are also un-necessary,
imho, if it ain't broke -- don't fix it).
1) On a style
Hi all,
The rand()-redesign is already looking like something. The next few days I'm
N/A, and I would appreciate it if people who:
- possibly have remarks on the new behaviour of rand() co, take a look at
my second proposal on this subject:
11 matches
Mail list logo
