You can add me to the list of people who feel like disappearing. On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 10:28 AM, Terry Reedy <tjre...@udel.edu> wrote:
> On 6/11/2016 11:34 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote: > >> In terms of API design, I'd prefer a flag to os.urandom() indicating a >> preference for >> - blocking >> - raising an exception >> - weaker random bits >> > > +100 ;-) > > I proposed exactly this 2 days ago, 5 hours after Larry's initial post. > > ''' > I think the 'new API' should be a parameter, not a new function. With just > two choices, 'wait' = True/False could work. If 'raise an exception' were > added, then > 'action (when good bits are not immediately available' = > 'return (best possible)' or > 'wait (until have good bits)' or > 'raise (CryptBitsNotAvailable)' > > In either case, there would then be the question of whether the default > should match 3.5.0/1 or 3.4 and before. > ''' > > Deciding on this then might have saved some hurt feelings, to the point > where two contributors feel like disappearing, and a release manager must > feel the same. In any case, Guido already picked 3.4 behavior as the > default. Can we agree and move on? > > -- > Terry Jan Reedy > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/guido%40python.org > -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
_______________________________________________ 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
