Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:117132
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAMs36HcsGqNanQaro_VTkK_VKHNg-jqtshXpW-aCxdqpxHjMdw@mail.gmail.com>
 <553ba7ca-3821-c2d9-f88f-b216013a887b@bastelstu.be> <a2683304-542f-e63a-e35f-04e5bb75f5d1@bastelstu.be>
 <CAMs36Hc+W_GkO4W+FB=ySFvc79DYy+M3TaT5qL0Ap9NwmY=6dQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <2c667812-88c8-0b7b-3558-561a1348d0b2@bastelstu.be> <CAMs36HctoKykr=aSVCr_DtFEpeF1fZke5LGCOFu_-oQEzL06Ug@mail.gmail.com>
 <a94b1b01-dd9c-bb62-01ab-34c16c3d46cb@bastelstu.be> <CAMs36HcVYNVB+mukx27Z90+5DtiHz1JO0i7qF+kP6UaML-y3ZQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <5f496cf9-8754-b009-9cb5-b978222b2249@bastelstu.be> <CAMs36HdSf8Mh9Mugwvb643xNfLnpZQ0RAvV_ZuS11vQzQRTmZA@mail.gmail.com>
 <cc43d1ce-8807-c0fd-94a4-514ebedea661@bastelstu.be> <CAMs36HcC7O7YR6VVybw=ChPrWWcWjnCTxR6_=5scFy0+ksZEaA@mail.gmail.com>
 <a1369ca5-9d27-8151-300d-73b90cd584d3@bastelstu.be> <CAMs36HcLgJszZ2LuUKjuykr4uLNP0+LdJd6disx_Xnbs+K63Xw@mail.gmail.com>
 <26a8c3ee-9f0a-793c-10c0-7e642eedf1d0@bastelstu.be> <CAMs36HdiSO1rrUD8UDkGu-TLu-ovTLCMG-P+55NYhDkLpJwqjA@mail.gmail.com>
 <47cb96f5-4450-0377-dc95-67faac3fef33@bastelstu.be>
In-Reply-To: <47cb96f5-4450-0377-dc95-67faac3fef33@bastelstu.be>
Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2022 17:47:39 +0900
Message-ID: <CAMs36Hej6rZhdKEGcfx9N+zr+-=Pq=4Cmzg-HFzsbF4B8ZPTAQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Tim_D=C3=BCsterhus?= <tim@bastelstu.be>
Cc: internals@lists.php.net
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000018619305d8bfa348"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Under Discussion] Random Extension 4.0
From: g-kudo@colopl.co.jp (Go Kudo)

--00000000000018619305d8bfa348
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

2022=E5=B9=B42=E6=9C=8821=E6=97=A5(=E6=9C=88) 21:44 Tim D=C3=BCsterhus <tim=
@bastelstu.be>:

> Hi
>
> On 2/21/22 03:57, Go Kudo wrote:
> >   I am sorry for the delay in replying.
>
> Don't worry, there was a weekend inbetween and I totally understand that
> one wants to take their weekend off.
>
> > Thank you for the clear explanation.
> > It is true that the RFC in its current form lacks explanation. I'll try
> to
> > fix this first.
>
> Sounds good.
>
> > Also, as I look into other languages' implementations, I see the need t=
o
> > add some RNGs such as PCG. I will update the RFC to include these.
>
> I suggest you avoid "feature creep" within the RFC. Additional engines
> can be added easily later on if the need arises. But for now it's more
> important to get a reliable basis that one can build onto.
>
> Having a choice of a multitude of different engine just distracts from
> that goal and can be confusing for the user. With xoshiro256** there's a
> very good choice that already is part of the RFC, no need to have
> something else that might or might not be slightly better in some case.
>
> Best regards
> Tim D=C3=BCsterhus
>

Hi

RFC has been updated. Is this up to the required standard?
https://wiki.php.net/rfc/rng_extension

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 added PCG64 because according to the RNG experts, there seems to be a
mild conflict between Xorshiro256 and PCG64. Also, as mentioned in the RFC,
Rust and NumPy also implement PCG64.

In order to verify the feasibility of PCG64, we created a PoC in C. So far,
it seems to work fine.
https://github.com/zeriyoshi/pcg64_example

Regards,
Go Kudo

--00000000000018619305d8bfa348--