RetroSearch Browse

Fri Jun 10 15:57:31 EDT 2016 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2016-June/145057.html

Tim Peters <tim.peters at gmail.com> wrote:
> secrets.token_bytes() is already the way to spell "get a string of
> messed-up bytes", and that's the dead obvious (according to me) place
> to add the potentially blocking implementation.

I honestly didn't think that this was the dead obvious function to
use. To me the naming kind of suggested that it would do some
special magic that tokens needed, instead of just returning random
bytes (even though the best token is probably just perfectly random
data). If you want to provide a general function for secure random
bytes I would suggest at least a better naming.

Sebastian

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2016-June/145057.html below:

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