Hello,
I'd still prefer to see a randomized hash()-function (at least for 3.3).
But to protect against the attacks it would be sufficient to use
randomization for collision resolution in dicts (and sets).
What if we use a second (randomized) hash-function in case there
are many collisions in ON
Wiadomość napisana przez Ethan Furman w dniu 20 sty 2012, o godz. 21:05:The problem I have with 'raise x from None' is it puts 'from None' clear at the end of linefrom None raise SomeOtherError('etc.')Better yet:with nocontext(): raise SomeOtherError('etc.')But that's python-ideas territory ;)-- Be
On 1/23/2012 12:53 AM, Frank Sievertsen wrote:
What if we use a second (randomized) hash-function in case there
are many collisions in ONE lookup. This hash-function is used only
for collision resolution and is not cached.
So this sounds like SafeDict, but putting it under the covers and
aut
On 23.01.2012 19:25, Glenn Linderman wrote:
So this sounds like SafeDict, but putting it under the covers and
automatically converting from dict to SafeDict after a collision
threshold has been reached. Let's call it fallback-dict.
and costs:
* converting the dict from one hash to the othe
Am 23.01.2012 15:49, schrieb Łukasz Langa:
[graphics]
> Pomyśl o środowisku naturalnym zanim wydrukujesz tę wiadomość!
> Please consider the environment before printing out this e-mail.
Oh please?!
Georg
___
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.o
On 1/23/2012 10:58 AM, Frank Sievertsen wrote:
On 23.01.2012 19:25, Glenn Linderman wrote:
So this sounds like SafeDict, but putting it under the covers and
automatically converting from dict to SafeDict after a collision
threshold has been reached. Let's call it fallback-dict.
and costs:
Wiadomość napisana przez Georg Brandl w dniu 23 sty 2012, o godz. 21:18:
> Am 23.01.2012 15:49, schrieb Łukasz Langa:
>
> [graphics]
>> Pomyśl o środowisku naturalnym zanim wydrukujesz tę wiadomość!
>> Please consider the environment before printing out this e-mail.
>
> Oh please?!
Excuse me.
Frank Sievertsen wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'd still prefer to see a randomized hash()-function (at least for 3.3).
>
> But to protect against the attacks it would be sufficient to use
> randomization for collision resolution in dicts (and sets).
>
> What if we use a second (randomized) hash-function
On 1/23/2012 1:25 PM, Glenn Linderman wrote:
On 1/23/2012 12:53 AM, Frank Sievertsen wrote:
What if we use a second (randomized) hash-function in case there
are many collisions in ONE lookup. This hash-function is used only
for collision resolution and is not cached.
So this sounds like SafeD
