RetroSearch Browse

Thu Jun 9 21:53:43 EDT 2016 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2016-June/144990.html

On Jun 09, 2016, at 03:22 PM, Larry Hastings wrote:

>On 06/09/2016 08:52 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
>> That leaves direct calls to os.urandom(). I don't think this should > block either.  
>
>Then it's you and me against the rest of the world ;-)

FWIW, I agree with you and Guido.  I'm also not opposed to adding a more
direct exposure of getrandom(), but in Python 3.6 only.  Like it or not,
that's the right approach for our backward compatibility policies.

Cheers,
-Barry

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2016-June/144990.html below:

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