On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 01:06:45PM -0700, Larry Hastings wrote: > > On 06/10/2016 01:01 PM, David Mertz wrote: > >So yes, I think 3.5.2 should restore the 2.6-3.4 behavior of os.urandom(), > > That makes... five of us I think ;-) (Larry Guido Barry Tim David) > > > >and the NEW APIs in secrets should use the "best available randomness > >(even if it blocks)" > > I'm not particular about how the new API is spelled. However, I do > think os.getrandom() should be exposed as a thin wrapper over > getrandom() in 3.6. That would permit Python programmers to take > maximal advantage of the features offered by their platform. It would > also permit the secrets module to continue to be written in pure Python.
A big +1 for that. Will there be platforms where os.getrandom doesn't exist? If not, then secrets can just rely on it, otherwise what should it do? if hasattr(os, 'getrandom'): return os.getrandom(n) else: # Fail? Fall back on os.urandom? -- Steve _______________________________________________ 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