Antoine Pitrou <pit...@free.fr> added the comment: > Antoine, seriously? You want to explore a function that's called > "secure" when the only thing you know about it is "probably secure"? > This is extremely tricky business and I think it should be called > secure only if you can prove it's secure. Otherwise it's plain > insecure and should not be named that.
What's the methodology to "prove" that it's secure? We could rename "secure" to "safe" to downtone it a bit, but it's still an improvement on the nominal equality comparison. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue15061> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
