Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:120431
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAH5C8xWAsRV+8h-tZ2Xq0=tn753kbSQX=KSEYsE2fWEtQVMrew@mail.gmail.com>
 <b6af7ea0-4d4e-4644-aed0-fee97a23ddbd@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <b6af7ea0-4d4e-4644-aed0-fee97a23ddbd@app.fastmail.com>
Date: Tue, 30 May 2023 00:51:10 +0900
Message-ID: <CABTDVhD-QSVVaDPE4b8LqY0J6E++0H6Nm30M-7sAb3FnFek3=Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ea8be105fcd70ee6"
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] [Discussion] PHP 8.3 deprecations
From: zeriyoshi@gmail.com (Go Kudo)

--000000000000ea8be105fcd70ee6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

2023=E5=B9=B45=E6=9C=8830=E6=97=A5(=E7=81=AB) 0:42 Nikita Popov <nikita.ppv=
@gmail.com>:

> On Mon, May 29, 2023, at 08:05, M=C3=A1t=C3=A9 Kocsis wrote:
> > Hi Everyone,
> >
> > Together with multiple authors, we'd like to start the discussion of th=
e
> > usual
> > deprecation RFC for the subsequent PHP version. You can find the link
> below:
> > https://wiki.php.net/rfc/deprecations_php_8_3
> >
> > Regards:
> > M=C3=A1t=C3=A9 Kocsis
>
> I don't think we should deprecate mt_rand().
>
> There are plenty of use-cases that require neither a seedable
> (predictable) RNG sequence, nor a cryptographically-secure RNG. For those
> use-cases (and especially one-off uses), mt_rand() is perfect, and going
> through Randomizer is an entirely unnecessary complication.
>
> I think I could get on board with deprecating srand/mt_srand to make
> rand/mt_rand non-seedable, directing people who need a seedable RNG to us=
e
> Randomizer, which is much better suited to that use-case. However, we
> should retain rand/mt_rand themselves for non-seeded use-cases.
>
> With srand/mt_srand removed, we also would not have to produce any
> particular sequence, and would be free to switch the internal RNG to
> something other than Mt19937.
>
> The same extends to array_rand(), shuffle() and str_shuffle() -- in fact
> the RFC is missing an important voting option, which is "leave them alone=
",
> or rather "convert to some non-seedable non-CSPRNG" if you prefer.
>
> Regards,
> Nikita


+1

I too feel that the `Randomizer` is overkill for many applications.
However, I believe that there is a suitable alternative to `mt_rand()` /
`rand()` : `random_int()` It probably makes the most sense to use it.

On the other hand, there is no suitable alternative for `lcg_value()`. The
simpler `Randomizer::getFloat()` would be fine, but on the other hand,
floating-point random numbers are very hard to handle, so some say that the
`Randomizer` class should be used. I would like to hear your opinion on
this.

Best Regards,
Go Kudo

--000000000000ea8be105fcd70ee6--