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?
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
