(original) (raw)

On 1/26/2012 10:25 PM, Gregory P. Smith wrote:

(and on top of all of this I believe we're all settled on having per  
interpreter hash randomization \_as well\_ in 3.3; but this AVL tree  
approach is one nice option for a backport to fix the major  
vulnerability)

If the tree code cures the problem, then randomization just makes debugging harder. I think if it is included in 3.3, it needs to have a switch to turn it on/off (whichever is not default).

I'm curious why AVL tree rather than RB tree, simpler implementation? C++ stdlib includes RB tree, though, for even simpler implementation :)

Can we have a tree type in 3.3, independent of dict?