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? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20120126/62d7a7e2/attachment.html>
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4