Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Uuid and header-only support
From: Peter Dimov (lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-11-05 15:20:56
James E. King, III wrote:
> > You're still using "optimal" only with respect to performance. It's
> > never optimal for random numbers to not be cryptographically secure.
> Issues are always welcome.
Your use of "optimal" shows that you do not agree with the principle that
generated random numbers should always be of cryptographic quality by
default unless explicitly chosen by the user to not be. This fundamental
mindset difference is not something issues can fix.
> > > I'm adding boost::uuids::random_device_solo which is a
> > > basic_random_generator of random_device (header-only) type, ...
> > That's not a very good name. :-)
> It's not committed yet. :>
The logical choice would be random_device_generator but I don't like it
because you'll give it a "token" parameter and insist on passing it to
Wincrypt because unspecified multinationals using XP and a hardware entropy
source will need it to meet hypothetical government standards.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk