<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 21:33, Benjamin Peterson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:benjamin@python.org">benjamin@python.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
2012/1/27 Steven D'Aprano <<a href="mailto:steve@pearwood.info">steve@pearwood.info</a>>:<br>
<div class="im">> Benjamin Peterson wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> Hello everyone,<br>
>> In effort to get a fix out before Perl 6 goes mainstream, Barry and I<br>
>> have decided to pronounce on what we want for our stable releases.<br>
>> What we have decided is that<br>
>> 1. Simple hash randomization is the way to go. We think this has the<br>
>> best chance of actually fixing the problem while being fairly<br>
>> straightforward such that we're comfortable putting it in a stable<br>
>> release.<br>
>> 2. It will be off by default in stable releases and enabled by an<br>
>> envar at runtime. This will prevent code breakage from dictionary<br>
>> order changing as well as people depending on the hash stability.<br>
><br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Great!</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">
><br>
> Do you have the expectation that it will become on by default in some future<br>
> release?<br>
<br>
</div>Yes, 3.3. The solution in 3.3 could even be one of the more<br>
sophisticated proposals we have today.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>I think that would be good. And I would even argue we remove support for turning it off to force people to no longer lean on dict ordering as a crutch (in 3.3 obviously). </div>
</div>