On Mon, 27 Jan 2014 14:02:29 +1000 Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@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. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
