[Python-Dev] BDFL ruling request: should we block forever waiting for high-quality random bits? (original) (raw)

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 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) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20160611/fa1529fd/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Python-Dev mailing list