On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 03:45:19PM -0600, Eric Snow wrote:
> In a recent tracker issue about OrderedDict [1] we've had some
> discussion about the use of type(od) as a replacement for
> od.__class__.
[...]
> The more general question of when we use type(obj) vs. obj.__class__
> applies to both th
OK, so just randbelow() then.
--Guido (mobile)
On Oct 17, 2015 2:13 PM, "Tim Peters" wrote:
> [Steven D'Aprano]
> >> ...
> >> I think it is fair to say that out of the three functions, there is
> >> consensus that randbelow has the most useful functionality in a crypto
> >> context. Otherwise, p
Yes, randrange(n) does that.
--Guido (mobile)
On Oct 17, 2015 2:28 PM, "Brian Gladman" wrote:
> > Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
> > I'm fine with dropping the 3rd arg. But I find the argument to
> > introduce a new spelling for 1-arg randrange() weak.
>
> I should stress that my preference for randb
On 18.10.15 01:20, Eric Snow wrote:
On the tracker he notes another OrderedDict compatibility break:
Backward compatibility related to __class__ assignment was
already broken in C implementation. In 3.4 following code
works:
>>> from collections import *
>>> class foo(O
On 18.10.15 00:45, Eric Snow wrote:
In a recent tracker issue about OrderedDict [1] we've had some
discussion about the use of type(od) as a replacement for
od.__class__. It came up because the pure Python implementation of
OrderedDict uses self.__class__ in 3 different methods (__repr__,
__redu
A recent discussion in a tracker issue [1] brought up the matter of
compatibility between the pure Python implementation of OrderedDict
and the new C implementation. In working on that port I stuck as
closely as possible to the Python implementation. This meant some
parts of the code are bit more
In a recent tracker issue about OrderedDict [1] we've had some
discussion about the use of type(od) as a replacement for
od.__class__. It came up because the pure Python implementation of
OrderedDict uses self.__class__ in 3 different methods (__repr__,
__reduce__, and copy). The patch in that is
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I'm fine with dropping the 3rd arg. But I find the argument to
> introduce a new spelling for 1-arg randrange() weak.
I should stress that my preference for randbelow over randrange was
based purely on their proposed functionality and not on their names.
I do however
[Steven D'Aprano]
>> ...
>> I think it is fair to say that out of the three functions, there is
>> consensus that randbelow has the most useful functionality in a crypto
>> context. Otherwise, people seem roughly equally split between the three
>> functions. There doesn't seem to be any use-case fo
Guido van Rossum writes:
> On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Steven D'Aprano
> wrote:
>
> [...]
> So you can see there is nothing even close to consensus as to
> which API
> is best, which is an argument for keeping all three functions.
>
> No, that's not how we do it in Python. :
On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 2:50 AM, Steven D'Aprano
wrote:
> [...]
> So you can see there is nothing even close to consensus as to which API
> is best, which is an argument for keeping all three functions.
>
No, that's not how we do it in Python. :-)
> But significanly, only *one* of the commente
Brian Gladman writes:
>> On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 03:26:46AM +1100, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> I hence support your conclusion that the module should offer randbelow
> alone. I would oppose offering randomrange (or offering more than one
> of them) since this will pretty well guarantee that, sooner
This list is for discussion of development of the Python core language and
standard libraries, not for development *using* Python. It sounds like you
should probably do your homework problem on your own, actually, but if you
seek advice, something like StackOverflow or python-list are likely to be
> On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 03:26:46AM +1100, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
[snip]
> But significanly, only *one* of the commenters has claimed to have
> any significant experience in crypto work, and I will quote him:
I didn't specifically claim the experience you requested in responding
to your post on
Hi All,
I'm currently programming a set of crypto challenges in order to get a
deeper understanding of python and crypto. The problem is to break a
repeating key xor data (in a file). In order to do that I need a function
to calculate the hamming distance between two strings. To find that one
need
On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 03:26:46AM +1100, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 06:35:14PM +0300, Serhiy Storchaka wrote:
>
> > I suggest to add only randrange(). randint() is historical artefact, we
> > shouldn't repeat this mistake in new module. The secrets module is not
> > good w
16 matches
Mail list logo
