[PHP-DEV] Re: [PHP-DEV] [RFC] grapheme_mask – Vote Initiation on July 3rd
[email protected] (Nick Sdot)
| Newsgroups | php.internals |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hey Sepehr, On 01.07.26 00:36, سپهر محمودی wrote: > Hi internals, > > I hope this email finds you well. > > I am writing to formally announce that the voting period for the > grapheme_mask RFC will begin on July 3, 2026 and remain open until > July 11, 2026. > > --- > > RFC Summary > > This RFC proposes adding a new function grapheme_mask() to the intl > extension, which enables developers to mask portions of a string while > fully respecting grapheme cluster boundaries. This ensures that > complex Unicode sequences such as emojis, flags, and combined > characters are never corrupted during masking operations. > > --- > > Voting Schedule > > - Vote Opens: July 3, 2026 > - Vote Closes: July 11, 2026 > - Target Version: PHP 8.6 > > --- > > Why This RFC Matters > > - Solves a real-world need for masking PII in multi-language environments > - No backward compatibility breaks > - Fully implemented and tested against complex grapheme clusters > - Complements existing grapheme functions in the intl extension > > --- > > RFC Link > > http://wiki.php.net/rfc/grapheme_mask > > --- > > Voting Options > > - Yes → Accept grapheme_mask() into PHP 8.6 > - No → Decline the proposal > > --- > > Final Request > > If you have any remaining concerns or objections, please raise them > before July 3. Once voting begins, only votes will be counted. > > Thank you all for your time, feedback, and support throughout the > discussion period. I am confident that this function will be a > valuable addition to PHP's internationalization toolkit. > > Looking forward to your votes. > > Best regards, > Sepehr > [email protected] - the discussion link the the RFC points to the wrong thread - if I am not mistaken you mentioned somewhere that you have the implementation ready; could you please link it in the RFC? - I still do think `str_mask()` should be part of this for completeness - a little less LLM usage in your communication would be nice. -- Cheers Nick