[Python-Dev] BDFL ruling request: should we block forever waiting for high-quality random bits?
Guido van Rossum
guido at python.org
Sat Jun 11 13:41:19 EDT 2016
You can add me to the list of people who feel like disappearing.
On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 10:28 AM, Terry Reedy <tjreedy at udel.edu> wrote:
> On 6/11/2016 11:34 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> In terms of API design, I'd prefer a flag to os.urandom() indicating a
>> preference for
>> - blocking
>> - raising an exception
>> - weaker random bits
> +100 ;-)
> I proposed exactly this 2 days ago, 5 hours after Larry's initial post.
> I think the 'new API' should be a parameter, not a new function. With just
> two choices, 'wait' = True/False could work. If 'raise an exception' were
> added, then
> 'action (when good bits are not immediately available' =
> 'return (best possible)' or
> 'wait (until have good bits)' or
> 'raise (CryptBitsNotAvailable)'
> In either case, there would then be the question of whether the default
> should match 3.5.0/1 or 3.4 and before.
> Deciding on this then might have saved some hurt feelings, to the point
> where two contributors feel like disappearing, and a release manager must
> feel the same. In any case, Guido already picked 3.4 behavior as the
> default. Can we agree and move on?
> Terry Jan Reedy
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Python-Dev at python.org
--Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Python-Dev