Message267897
| Author | lemburg |
|---|---|
| Recipients | Colm Buckley, Lukasa, Theodore Tso, alex, doko, dstufft, larry, lemburg, martin.panter, matejcik, ned.deily, pitti, python-dev, rhettinger, skrah, thomas-petazzoni, vstinner, ztane |
| Date | 2016-06-08.21:04:48 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <57588868.3030307@egenix.com> |
| In-reply-to | <1465418971.68.0.478744503659.issue26839@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| Content | |
|---|---|
On 08.06.2016 22:49, Larry Hastings wrote: > > Third, because the os module is in general a thin wrapper over what the OS provides, I disapprove of "cryptorandom()" and "pseudorandom()" going into the os module. There are no functions with these names on any OS of which I'm aware. This is why I proposed "os.getrandom(n, block=True)". From its signature, the function it calls on your OS will be obvious, and its semantics on your OS will be documented by your OS. > > Thus I am completely unwilling to add os.cryptorandom() and os.pseudorandom() in 3.5.2. That was a sketch for 3.6 to resolve the ambiguity between the different use cases. You're right, it's better to move such things to the random module. |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2016-06-08 21:04:48 | lemburg | set | recipients: + lemburg, rhettinger, doko, vstinner, larry, matejcik, ned.deily, alex, skrah, python-dev, martin.panter, ztane, dstufft, pitti, Lukasa, thomas-petazzoni, Colm Buckley, Theodore Tso |
| 2016-06-08 21:04:48 | lemburg | link | issue26839 messages |
| 2016-06-08 21:04:48 | lemburg | create | |