Message305013
| Author |
gregory.p.smith |
| Recipients |
christian.heimes, dstufft, gregory.p.smith, jafo, pitrou, serhiy.storchaka, vstinner |
| Date |
2017年10月25日.22:46:49 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<CAGE7PNJRL3phFRPsYQw_7RAxHXeuY-GAXVjYhQAmOjL7QXtZQA@mail.gmail.com> |
| In-reply-to |
<1508949407.86.0.213398074469.issue31702@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| Content |
I'd stick with ValueError in that case as well. if someone dislikes the
valueerrors because they _want_ to use an invalid one, they can file a bug
and we'll reconsider only if they have a meaningful use case.
On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 9:36 AM Serhiy Storchaka <report@bugs.python.org>
wrote:
>
> Serhiy Storchaka <storchaka+cpython@gmail.com> added the comment:
>
> What to do with values outside of the valid range (2**4 to 2**31 for
> Blowfish, 1000 to 999999999 for SHA*). Raise ValueError, OverflowError, or
> bound it, or just generate an invalid salt and allow crypt() to handle it?
>
> ----------
> nosy: +haypo, pitrou
>
> _______________________________________
> Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org>
> <https://bugs.python.org/issue31702>
> _______________________________________
> |
|