Newsgroups: php.internals
Path: news.php.net
Xref: news.php.net php.internals:94445
Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm
Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain gmail.com designates 209.85.218.44 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAEZPtU4zRaotbgJeVLCH5dUxMAYzaEi7gLc651RVQ7-a1H8zdQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPwsocEihGOWC5_KX_FFe36dKTdSob0FFJUKuQW+u53QyeqgsQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEZPtU7AzLGbFh+=bvJNA+HScLVuKsUuF9iUEhACL6xv7VRZ-w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPwsocF0Zty7Kp1FZHYA2h+Y+eJvypj9nt1OPa8fdEZdiqR8vw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEZPtU48mLGqVVh4sDguto4Vx9Kj+ec=ViTUWXOr-UXCgSt2KA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEZPtU6XUGM4BfQ5g+huV_=rrVPfFtpmSO+3CzTcXPC20+x2=g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPwsocE5v7mGt3frjoPeFyt6sWtvkjWb=zcPUhFuRLA8fXLY2g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEZPtU7e2rvvHtNb3mC3qNT7ZY6djFX3sJ-Wo7rQLDDiRw5Y=w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPwsocGv824sOHPHeo8TAd6sy8Ez8PRMFq+mWnVNmp8e9ijyCA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEZPtU4zRaotbgJeVLCH5dUxMAYzaEi7gLc651RVQ7-a1H8zdQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 16:10:11 +0700
Message-ID: <CAEZPtU4q1zsf5YGrALN=mC5vSsBLJwSRoQH01jx-v7f9=8G7Hw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Leigh <leight@gmail.com>
Cc: PHP internals <internals@lists.php.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113d40be5f8ffb053730494f
Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][VOTE] RNG fixes
From: pierre.php@gmail.com (Pierre Joye)

--001a113d40be5f8ffb053730494f
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Jul 9, 2016 4:05 PM, "Leigh" <leight@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 9 Jul 2016 at 09:49 Pierre Joye <pierre.php@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I am sorry but this PR possibly breaks BC and cases have been clearly
explained how and why. Asking to show production  code publically is not
something that you should request.
>>
>> I can write a sample app to show you how but given the explanations many
gave already....
>
>
> Just to be clear, you voted no to one BC break, but yes to other BC
breaks. I don't know how you pick which ones are acceptable, and which are
not.
>
> Summary BC breaks you voted for:
>
> * No to changing the output of mt_rand after calling mt_srand with a
given seed (when not specifying a min/max)
> * Yes to changing the output of mt_rand after calling mt_srand with a
given seed (when specifying a min/max)
> * Yes to changing the output of rand, shuffle, str_shuffle and array_rand
>
> Do you see why this looks weird to me?

Yes and my mistake, did it too quick. The main issue remains and is not
addressed. I may simply move on and all no as I do not see big benefits as
of now to change it, especially not as I see many still thinking that
change makes php uses more secure ;)

--001a113d40be5f8ffb053730494f--