On 2/27/07, Jim Jewett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2/27/07, Guido van Rossum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 2/27/07, Jim Jewett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Therefore, normal code can ignore the possibility, or (to be really > > > robust against someone else messing with the input stream) add an "if > > > result is None: continue" clause to its loops. > > > No, since that would mean busy-waiting while the I/O isn't ready, > > Then should I assume that: > > (1) Read with a timeout is in the "better know your concrete object" > category.
Using these shouldn't necessarily need to be (but you *should* know to expect EWOULDBLOCK); but setting the timeout should be, yes. > (2) Dealing with possibly unready objects in a library/framework > (yield the timeslot?) should generally be framework specific. Yeah, event loop business typically is. -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list [email protected] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
