Home Original page

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

Terry Reedy tjreedy at udel.edu
Sat Jun 11 13:28:33 EDT 2016 
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
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list