Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:117975
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAMs36Het5f=ojSw8H4kooZxub-COvhKmiJfYUUM7ioBSpVKFVA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMs36He3Cu+bh=9ycvpBPn+oCXCOuDT5ftkg9mV=qb8JeuPxAQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAC5V6ggV+Q3HQM-26V759=R1X9+NvG9biPcFzJK4y7DegztE8g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAC5V6ggV+Q3HQM-26V759=R1X9+NvG9biPcFzJK4y7DegztE8g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2022 21:37:46 +0900
Message-ID: <CAMs36Hfv2pcpVS-E4b9R3NSmVSSpw=3B2S3z6kkHZer52dJbYg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Guilliam Xavier <guilliam.xavier@gmail.com>, internals@lists.php.net
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000001e3fdf05e1a40684"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] Re: [RFC] [VOTE] Random Extension 5.x
From: g-kudo@colopl.co.jp (Go Kudo)

--0000000000001e3fdf05e1a40684
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

2022=E5=B9=B46=E6=9C=8816=E6=97=A5(=E6=9C=A8) 19:56 Guilliam Xavier <guilli=
am.xavier@gmail.com>:

> Hi,
>
> > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/random_extension_improvement
>
> Thanks; some editorial remarks:
>
>   - I think "Engine is not final" should rather be "Engine
> implementations are not final", and similarly in the text: "Even if
> the native class is made final" to "Even if the native classes are
> made final", "and the native implementation of the class should be
> marked as final" to "and the native implementations of the interface
> should be marked as final"
>   - The sentence "The engine already provides an interface with only a
> generate(): string method called Random\Engine." sounds weird, maybe
> rather "The extension already provides a Random\Engine interface with
> a single generate(): string method."?
>   - "Proposal" is a subsection inside "Introduction", it should rather
> be a root section (at the same level as "Backward Incompatible
> Changes")
>   - What would be the signature of Randomizer::pickKey()? (whatever
> the naming, important is parameters and return types) -- I guess the
> same as existing array_rand(), but better be explicit
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Guilliam Xavier
>

Hi Xavier.

Thanks very much for the detailed point of view. I am very ashamed of my
poor English.
Maximum thanks!

I have corrected all the points you pointed out.

Regards
Go Kudo

--0000000000001e3fdf05e1a40684--