<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content=text/html;charset=iso-8859-1>
<STYLE></STYLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16735" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=MailContainerBody
style="PADDING-LEFT: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: #000000; BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; PADDING-TOP: 15px; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none"
leftMargin=0 topMargin=0 acc_role="text" CanvasTabStop="true"
name="Compose message area"><!--[gte IE 5]><?xml:namespace prefix="v" /><?xml:namespace prefix="o" /><![endif]-->
<DIV>Paul has writen:</DIV>
<DIV>> "I'll pick, um, er, that one" without knowing what it is.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Well, please blame me as a greenhorn or as what you want. But picking it
without knowing it, is exactly what I will do as Python programmer when a new
problem appears. It's like that: First trying and only if it's inevitable
reading the documentation and then only if it's inevitable intending the hole in
deepth.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>In my oppinion a "weak flag" in the algorithms interface would be nice for
Pythonists. This flag should allow calls of weak ciphers only if it's set. So,
some sort of hint for the programmer, but not the deliverance of the duty to
study the applied agorithm. We can assume that the programmer is minimal
knowing, that a cipher is something special. In this way I am intending the
statements of Dwayne </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Stefan</DIV></BODY></HTML>