> Whether determinism is fundamentally good or fundamentally bad depends
> heavily on context.
Agreed 100%. Unfortunately in Python, you cannot choose your hashing function
depending on context.
Also, once you've decided to violate determinism somewhere, it's gone. There is
no way, in the gener
On Thu, 1 Dec 2022 at 17:26, Yoni Lavi wrote:
>
> > the language makes no guarantee about hash consistency between
> executions
>
> because it's futile in the general case, even if objects were to get a serial
> `id` and hash by it for example, any change in the number of objects created
> acros
> the language makes no guarantee about hash consistency between
executions
because it's futile in the general case, even if objects were to get a serial
`id` and hash by it for example, any change in the number of objects created
across all of Python (including its builtin modules and various l
On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 12:58 PM Yoni Lavi wrote:
> It does make your argument invalid though,
It makes that single sentence invalid, but the rest of my points still
hold, e.g. the language makes no guarantee about hash consistency between
executions, set order is not guaranteed, etc. are all s
On Wed, Nov 30, 2022 at 12:47 PM Steve Dower wrote:
> On 11/30/2022 4:52 PM, chris...@weinigel.se wrote:
> > Does this seem like a good idea? As I said, I feel that it is a bit
> ugly, but it does mean that if someone wants to use some
> SSL_really_obscure_function in libcrypto or libssl they ca
On 11/30/2022 4:52 PM, chris...@weinigel.se wrote:
Does this seem like a good idea? As I said, I feel that it is a bit ugly, but
it does mean that if someone wants to use some SSL_really_obscure_function in
libcrypto or libssl they can do that without having to rebuild all of CPython
themselv
Hi all,
for quite some time I've been working on a Python implementation of a protocol
called NTS which requires access to an API in OpenSSL which is not provided by
the Python ssl module. I added a patch for that which unfortunately for me the
maintainer did not want to accept. Some comments
On Tue, 29 Nov 2022 at 23:46, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2022 at 08:51:09PM -, Yoni Lavi wrote:
>
> > It does make your argument invalid though, since it's based on this
> > assumption that I was asking for a requirement on iteration order
> > (e.g. like dict's iteration order
