I think the discussion petered out and nobody asked me to approve it yet (or I lost track of it). I'm almost happy to approve it in the current state. My only quibble is with some naming -- I'm not sure that a super-generic name like 'equal' is better than the original ('compare_digest'), and I would have picked a different name for token_url -- probably token_urlsafe. But maybe Steven can convince me that the names currently in the PEP are better. (I also don't like the wishy-washy position of the PEP on the actual specs of the proposed functions. But I'm fine with the actual implementation shown as the spec.)
On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 10:36 AM, Brett Cannon firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
I noticed an article about default rand usage in Go http://blog.sgmansfield.com/2016/01/the-hidden-dangers-of-default-rand/ from the Go Weekly newsletter and it reminded me about PEP 506 and the secrets module. That's when I noticed that the PEP is still open. What is the current blocker on the PEP?
On Thu, 15 Oct 2015 at 17:57 Steven D'Aprano email@example.com wrote:
As extensively discussed on Python-Ideas, the secrets module and PEP 506 is (I hope) ready for pronouncement.
There is code and tests here:
or you can run
The code is written for and tested on Python 2.6, 2.7, 3.1 - 3.4.
Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/brett%40python.org
Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/guido%40python.org
-- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)