On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 08:40:35AM -0700, Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes wrote: > On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 03:54:45PM +0200, Rafael Garcia-Suarez wrote: > > > > That's right, however returning 0 on non-error makes sense (see select(2)) > > "0 but true", given the code Gisle has shown.
I don't think so. In particular the HTTP::Daemon code clearly assumes a return value of plain 0 is the result of a timeout as described in select(2). So the only change that would need to be made would be to return undef instead of -1. > > and there are backward compatibility issues (in the event that some > > code gets it right...) > > Yes. Drat. I'm pretty sure I have code (which I'm not responsible for anymore) that does it wrong. I'm sure I've had false positives from C<select> before. -- Rick Delaney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
