[Python-Dev] BDFL ruling request: should we block forever waiting for high-quality random bits?
Random832
random832 at fastmail.com
Thu Jun 16 11:07:04 EDT 2016
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list
Thu Jun 16 11:07:04 EDT 2016
- Previous message (by thread): [Python-Dev] BDFL ruling request: should we block forever waiting for high-quality random bits?
- Next message (by thread): [Python-Dev] BDFL ruling request: should we block forever waiting for high-quality random bits?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Thu, Jun 16, 2016, at 10:04, Barry Warsaw wrote: > On Jun 16, 2016, at 09:51 AM, Random832 wrote: > > >On Thu, Jun 16, 2016, at 04:03, Barry Warsaw wrote: > >> *If* we can guarantee that os.urandom() will never block or raise an > >> exception when only poor entropy is available, then it may be indeed > >> indistinguishably backward compatible for most if not all cases. > > > >Why can't we exclude cases when only poor entropy is available from > >"most if not all cases"? > > Because if it blocks or raises a new exception on poor entropy it's an > API break. Yes, but in only very rare cases. Which as I *just said* makes it backwards compatible for "most" cases.
- Previous message (by thread): [Python-Dev] BDFL ruling request: should we block forever waiting for high-quality random bits?
- Next message (by thread): [Python-Dev] BDFL ruling request: should we block forever waiting for high-quality random bits?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Python-Dev mailing list