Newsgroups: php.internals Path: news.php.net Xref: news.php.net php.internals:95947 Return-Path: Mailing-List: contact internals-help@lists.php.net; run by ezmlm Delivered-To: mailing list internals@lists.php.net Received: (qmail 28563 invoked from network); 12 Sep 2016 14:46:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lists.php.net) (127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 12 Sep 2016 14:46:39 -0000 Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com header.from=kazuo@o-ishi.jp; sender-id=pass Authentication-Results: pb1.pair.com smtp.mail=oishi@giraffy.jp; spf=pass; sender-id=pass Received-SPF: pass (pb1.pair.com: domain giraffy.jp designates 49.212.134.110 as permitted sender) X-PHP-List-Original-Sender: oishi@giraffy.jp X-Host-Fingerprint: 49.212.134.110 www7096uf.sakura.ne.jp Received: from [49.212.134.110] ([49.212.134.110:52560] helo=xii.giraffy.jp) by pb1.pair.com (ecelerity 2.1.1.9-wez r(12769M)) with ESMTP id 51/2C-58405-ECFB6D75 for ; Mon, 12 Sep 2016 10:46:38 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xii.giraffy.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2697B7A8060; Mon, 12 Sep 2016 23:46:34 +0900 (JST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at giraffy.jp Received: from xii.giraffy.jp ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (xii.giraffy.jp [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ucf-tzN6iWKC; Mon, 12 Sep 2016 23:46:32 +0900 (JST) Received: from lil.giraffy.jp (aa024044.ppp.asahi-net.or.jp [110.5.24.44]) by xii.giraffy.jp (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7953D7A7FC2; Mon, 12 Sep 2016 23:46:32 +0900 (JST) To: Yasuo Ohgaki Cc: "internals\@lists.php.net" In-Reply-To: (Yasuo Ohgaki's message of "Mon, 12 Sep 2016 21:08:26 +0900") References: <878tuxenl4.fsf@lil.giraffy.jp> <87twdlcs2j.fsf@lil.giraffy.jp> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2016 23:46:32 +0900 Message-ID: <87h99lch13.fsf@lil.giraffy.jp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Subject: Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC][DISCUSSION] Improve uniqid() uniqueness From: kazuo@o-ishi.jp (Kazuo Oishi) Hi, >> IMO, improving it (generate better semi-unique ID) is not important >> enoungh to introduce unnecessary BC break. (Why returning string length >> is changed?) > > It cannot not produce unique ID by default as name "uniqid()" implies. > Reason is described in the RFC. Please read RFC because it's the > official proposal. I had read it, of course. But I could not understand why you chose BC break way. Now, I understand your intention to change default value of "more_entropy" despite of BC break. You do want to change the default behavior of uniqid. But I cannot agree. -- Kazuo Oishi