Hi Morrison. > Sorry if I missed an optional "intent to vote soon" thread.
I thought I had announced it here, but I did not indicate the specific dates. I apologize for that. https://externals.io/message/113720 > simply based on the fact that namespaced things are going into`ext/standard`. Yes, I feel that the use of namespaces is an area that needs to be carefully discussed. The goal of this RFC is just to get such a feature into core, and we are not particularly concerned about namespaces. (In other words, we think it's fine to change RNG\RNGInterface to RNGInterface and RNG\XorShift128Plus to XorShift128PlusRNG and not use namespaces.) As per the RFC, we believe this feature is necessary for approaches like Fiber and Swoole, which have more complex execution order and state management. What if you have a problem with this feature being implemented in `ext/standard`? I think this is unavoidable since `shuffle()`, `array_rand()`, and `str_suffle()` are implemented in `ext/standard`. The original RFC suggested quarantining them as `ext/rng` to avoid this (PECL orng is mostly based on the original idea), but the global state dependent `shuffle()`, `array_rand()`, and `str_shuffle()` are implemented in `ext/standard`. ext/standard` are implemented and not deprecated, the possibility of unintentionally writing state-dependent code increases in the future. Let me know what you think. 2021年4月2日(金) 4:19 Levi Morrison <levi.morri...@datadoghq.com>: > On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 10:39 PM Go Kudo <zeriyo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hello everyone. > > > > Object scoped RNG RFC vote is now open. > > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/object_scope_prng > > > > The deadline for voting is April 15. > > > > Previous discussions can be viewed below. > > > > https://externals.io/message/112765 > > https://externals.io/message/112819 > > https://externals.io/message/113720 > > > > Regards, > > Go Kudo > > Sorry if I missed an optional "intent to vote soon" thread. I voted no > simply based on the fact that namespaced things are going into > `ext/standard`. We have an open RFC discussion on this issue, which > has had discussion as recently as 10 days ago. I cannot vote "yes" on > anything involved with namespaces in this context in good conscience. > > At the same time, we shouldn't block things indefinitely. >
