RetroSearch Browse

Mon Jan 27 10:38:30 CET 2014 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2014-January/132125.html

On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 14:02:29 +1000
Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> If we do go this path, then we should backport the full fix (i.e.
> accepting None to indicate repeating forever), rather than just a
> partial fix.
> 
> That is, I'm OK with either not backporting anything at all, or
> backporting the full change. The only idea I object to is the one of
> removing the infinite iteration capability without providing a
> replacement spelling for it.

I would say not backport at all. The security threat is highly
theoretical. If someone blindly accepts user values for repeat(), the
user value can just as well be a very large positive with similar
effects (e.g. 2**31).

Regards

Antoine.

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2014-January/132125.html below:

[Python-Dev] Negative times behaviour in itertools.repeat for Python maintenance releases (2.7, 3.3 and maybe 3.4)