Hi On 2/24/22 09:47, Go Kudo wrote:
RFC has been updated. Is this up to the required standard? https://wiki.php.net/rfc/rng_extension
I've just passed my own RFC just yesterday, so I'm certainly not an expert with regard to RFC standards, however:
I think the explanation in the RFC is *much* better now. It explains all the important aspects, so that one does not need to look into the implementation to understand how it is supposed to work.
However it would benefit from a little more structuring. I suggest to add some additional sub-headings to the "Proposal" section. Perhaps something like this:
# Proposal ## Current Issues ### Global State ### Mersenne Twister is not state of the art ## Random Engine ### MT ### xorshift ### xoshiro ### <whatever engine else> ## Randomizer I'm not sure whether all those headlines make sense, you're the expert here.
I acknowledge that the previous RFC may have been difficult to discuss. If the problem has been solved, I would like to make another ML-wide announcement and wait for two weeks from there.
I would advice you not to rush the vote. Take your time to make the RFC perfect. It does not help if you start the vote in 2 weeks and then the RFC is declined, because of some issues.
Best regards Tim Düsterhus -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: https://www.php.net/unsub.php
