[Ur] need help with unification and field name disjointness proof failures

[Adam Chlipala]

On 04/08/2017 04:05 PM, Adam Chlipala wrote:
> On 04/06/2017 06:22 PM, Benjamin Barenblat wrote:
>> The fact that `rand` returns -1 on failure, however, is a bit scary.
>> That sounds like a CVE waiting to happen – people aren’t going to
>> check the result code from `rand`. Adam, how would you feel about it
>> returning an `option` or throwing an application error if it fails?
>
> Raising an error seems like a reasonable idea.  It could signal to 
> snooping parties that we ran out of entropy, but I hope that isn't 
> such a serious leak.  Any other strong opinions from people watching 
> the list? 

OK, absent other opinions, I implemented raising an error.