Message366440
| Author |
rhettinger |
| Recipients |
mark.dickinson, pitrou, rhettinger, serhiy.storchaka, steven.daprano, vstinner |
| Date |
2020年04月14日.20:03:51 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1586894631.58.0.585569079077.issue40282@roundup.psfhosted.org> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
+0 for having getrandbits(0) return 0. Conceptually, it is reasonable. Practically, it is a bit inconvenient because the ValueError may have to be moved upstream to the _randbelow() methods.
-1 for getrandbytes(). That is feature creep and no user has requested it. Also, the name leads to a confusing API with getrandbits() returning arbitrary sized python ints and getrandbytes() returning bytes. Lastly, it mostly duplicates functionality already supplied by secrets.token_bytes(). If you really want this, open another tracker issue and don't derail the issue at hand. |
|