Quoting Michael Niedermayer (2023-07-07 02:55:46) > > The litteral wording was > "that guarantees either cryptographically secure randomness or an error." > > that was what i refered to. > > the wording used now: > "to the best of our ability, and that of the underlying libraries we rely on) > cryptographically secure." > > is perfectly fine with me. > I would have the same issue if someone said AES gurantees ...
IMO the two formulations are equivalent whenever it comes to practical computing. An algorithm can be mathematically proven to be sound*, but any practical computing scheme on actual hardware is always subject to software bugs, system misconfiguration, hardware bugs, hardware failure, etc. We use similar wording in other documentation, where e.g. we might guarantee that some function returns a NULL-terminated string or so. That guarantee is always under the implicit condition that there are no bugs and the code runs in the expected environment. The same considerations apply here. * assuming there are no bugs in your proof -- Anton Khirnov _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org https://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel To unsubscribe, visit link above, or email ffmpeg-devel-requ...@ffmpeg.org with subject "unsubscribe".
