Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:118019
Message-ID: <3fc08765-1419-76ff-d0a6-bf4552dfdc2f@bastelstu.be>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2022 17:42:43 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Go Kudo <zeriyoshi@gmail.com>,
 Nicolas Grekas <nicolas.grekas+php@gmail.com>,
 PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
References: <CAMs36HcGzvwwTTU+nUO+U_M6o4qpOAHES7RbHEJWm6iot+-9=Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOWwgp=t93i6j=hOQ+z1swoRKDh7Ay5-ty=31pEv84y5rhbekg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABTDVhA6wSb04OEONuNP447yDDDQVRpyYH4h9pNLP_6kkVP9Gg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABTDVhA6wSb04OEONuNP447yDDDQVRpyYH4h9pNLP_6kkVP9Gg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Under Discussion] Random Extension Improvement
From: tim@bastelstu.be (=?UTF-8?Q?Tim_D=c3=bcsterhus?=)

Hi

On 6/20/22 17:12, Go Kudo wrote:
>> CombinedLCG
> 
> This is provided as an OOP implementation for the `lcg_value()` function,
> but I don't actually
> want it to be used anymore, so I probably shouldn't provide a class for it.
> 
> And to begin with, the current CombinedLCG cannot even be seeded with
> arbitrary values.
> 
> However, I think it needs to remain in the internal API either way. (The
> option of not providing
> it to userland is a valid one.)

I wouldn't object to dropping CombinedLCG, especially since its internal 
parameters are not defined via the name (contrary to MT19937).

> What do you think about the `Random\CryptoSecureEngine` interface?
> It is just a marker interface with no methods.
> 
> However, I currently think it is better than adding a method like
> `isSecure(): bool`
> to the `Random\Engine`.
> 

I *much* prefer the marker interface.

Best regards
Tim Düsterhus