Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:110065
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <9e3b1604-8d0a-9db4-aab6-e5f2198252f4@allenjb.me.uk>
 <C4580849-BC5B-45CA-9B57-56CB63B3F8F0@benramsey.com> <3a2924d2-31b9-fee5-5548-49c889eca2f4@heigl.org>
 <CALKiJKoXfW2usFmHS2ev2ihe6i=SV5JQaMgQmHCi5-rqeEdOWw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANUQDCi3+fzy9E9kJ-vuDsTXMwNko9PpBUBAGUTxacdaQFPE5g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJvSBVMGEyqKNOxtGLyVqKrc0YRpiTyc8Ok55cocSS-2trL=Xw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALKiJKpTf3AyhLjbMOu+gO--gmgatZ0Nazbsj2AZ-L2PVvOe5w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL0xaBG-VLN6pMPoKttkCZLXdzOKJLo0mdZvL2ggOy1Fqjae8w@mail.gmail.com>
 <D21D4456-228B-4059-9B51-F40B3EC94286@gmail.com> <CA+kxMuS5DcHd18Nq5eXCOZB24KUsydtq4tg+wXgTuPORO+XMrA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CA+kxMuS5DcHd18Nq5eXCOZB24KUsydtq4tg+wXgTuPORO+XMrA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2020 10:12:52 +0100
Message-ID: <CALKiJKqwNXgYY3rc+wZqnuwtcq+WmAe8VjUvcuY1sFAvAJrEAQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000cdb6c905a50b49a2"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Deprecating uniqid()
From: rowan.collins@gmail.com (Rowan Tommins)

--000000000000cdb6c905a50b49a2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Wed, 6 May 2020 at 13:40, Dan Ackroyd <Danack@basereality.com> wrote:

> This is a problem that would be better solved in userland rather than
> trying to design and evolve inside core PHP.
>


I think that's a major philosophical question: should the core of a
language provide only those most basic building blocks from which
everything else can be built; or should it include a standard library of
functions for the most common tasks? Obviously, the answer can have many
shades of grey, but PHP doesn't generally take the "minimalist" approach.

Unless we're actively trying to shrink the functionality of PHP's core, it
feels weird to say "this function is deprecated; there is no official
replacement, please write your own or find one on Packagist". Is there a
specific reason *not* to write a replacement, or do you just consider it
not a universal enough requirement to include in the standard library?

Regards,
-- 
Rowan Tommins
[IMSoP]

--000000000000cdb6c905a50b49a2--