Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:120893 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 86623 invoked from network); 8 Aug 2023 19:11:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO php-smtp4.php.net) (45.112.84.5) by pb1.pair.com with SMTP; 8 Aug 2023 19:11:08 -0000 Received: from php-smtp4.php.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 151501804D0 for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2023 12:11:06 -0700 (PDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on php-smtp4.php.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_40,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-ASN: AS15169 209.85.128.0/17 X-Spam-Virus: No X-Envelope-From: Received: from mail-oa1-f48.google.com (mail-oa1-f48.google.com [209.85.160.48]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature ECDSA (P-256) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by php-smtp4.php.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Tue, 8 Aug 2023 12:11:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oa1-f48.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-1bfb91ac4edso3101951fac.3 for ; Tue, 08 Aug 2023 12:11:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1691521864; x=1692126664; h=content-disposition:mime-version:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=r29VepmrXgxnJX8QGwSCMLJPVEDYKeQO9YsxB3uRBE0=; b=JTjil0b67QpraeNY07qea5pP2yvC94DE0fioyaoHLCJs9wugPxrpJD0qvyIeqW9d54 aWU4lt90Hf3UkS0F/5HJpF/Kq0dfgsi7kDyYFfg4MahdXnqf228VyscTe6JyI7f14aZD /jwLLQDtfFCPKbsmGeBmTcoodhQcjYC2HrJjSZNZpInT9MaDM8EpzWgrZrYZyWf2Wi7K cc6LQui7Tpu6cwM1nYMocQkEMpo6Y8gwHPkiEi4drbGQeqpk3VsRnvKBmdjn2dmHKSlM thfJesB3BKwJnrTFzgKdj3bwG6N2My90qtD8XwH7kljqSr5H1rPnIXFKfKgUuux4YsTe lOVA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1691521864; x=1692126664; h=content-disposition:mime-version:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=r29VepmrXgxnJX8QGwSCMLJPVEDYKeQO9YsxB3uRBE0=; b=R6OamYrAWNnp5xCfJf7s2U4l/AxIcyqRsUXNYWVxMxON9VLQFeEnHoK098Oyz0kFgE w71/WospNG81vIeXuy9DlnBjNowsanziOitmIgDKC4tQ8YevlItMoLEl9yF9TpWtUiPh LfjavTF7OJk69Eu1FOvZWranjtlfRkfLRnr7A06FyYkBjFvs1tj0sm39D9trplkUCfj4 h35XaArEV0kxfI2vLF3On04uiAPaSeUHMkbAjxZIilRN8sshy6rHMA2fjUCrT3Q/mygu 21NDLbn9CnuO3jK3OI5Utxnv+WAtNiqUre5d0x0G0AgCzkeVfO7A5n641eA1Duu11EA8 jn9A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzbSmo1EurMqkJvjSFlW4Izh+KcP3wk0niQLDR0q8hFw5YEWMHi l4vdN4buvmtxG/GyT9xiUukk/nrTmO4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGUsMqbuOMjOfFxQgFWLNMbMnT/kG6xvG2MUfG7JYQp29v5yKqI2MdNBquPCzT4ZXgjIvtzMw== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:9a15:b0:1b3:9e41:de07 with SMTP id fo21-20020a0568709a1500b001b39e41de07mr537418oab.36.1691521864565; Tue, 08 Aug 2023 12:11:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([177.37.45.169]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m20-20020a0568301e7400b006b8e8884f2fsm6164655otr.51.2023.08.08.12.11.03 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 08 Aug 2023 12:11:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2023 16:11:01 -0300 To: PHP internals Cc: neufeind@php.net Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline Subject: [RFC] Support optional suffix parameter in tempnam From: athoscribeiro@gmail.com (Athos Ribeiro) Hi internals, As a follow-up on my previous message here (https://marc.info/?l=php-internals&m=168912164828942&w=2), I would like to start the discussion on the "Support optional suffix parameter in tempnam" RFC. https://wiki.php.net/rfc/tempnam-suffix-v2 The goal is, as suggested by its title, to allow an optional parameter to the tempnam function, which would set a suffix to the created temporary file. This is a take-over on a previous attempt by Stefan Neufeind (https://wiki.php.net/rfc/tempnam-suffix), who I am Ccing for visibility. I left some of my concerns regarding the proposed implementation in the open issues section along with arguments for leaving them as is. Provided no suggestions/discussions arrise from them, I will move them to the future scope section before starting the voting phase for this change. Thanks in advance for any feedback here. regards, -- Athos Ribeiro