<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
On 06/10/2016 01:01 PM, David Mertz wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAEbHw4bgvHS-9trwQDbs6aN6zK=hr0xXF72DY8C+YM5hTYxvEA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">So yes, I think 3.5.2 should restore
the 2.6-3.4 behavior of os.urandom(),</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
That makes... five of us I think ;-) (Larry Guido Barry Tim David)<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAEbHw4bgvHS-9trwQDbs6aN6zK=hr0xXF72DY8C+YM5hTYxvEA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">and the NEW APIs in secrets should
use the "best available randomness (even if it blocks)"<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I'm not particular about how the new API is spelled. However, I do
think os.getrandom() should be exposed as a thin wrapper over
getrandom() in 3.6. That would permit Python programmers to take
maximal advantage of the features offered by their platform. It
would also permit the secrets module to continue to be written in
pure Python.<br>
<br>
<br>
<i>/arry</i><br>
</body>
</html>