Antoine Pitrou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> added the comment: > When I revised the patch I had a weak understanding of nonblocking I/O. > I thought the "exponential" reads were for nonblocking I/O, but I see > now that is non-sense.
Fine, so it will make the patch simpler. As for non-blocking IO, I think we should raise the general issue on python-3000. There is no real support for it right now, by which I mean (1) no easy and portable way of enable non-blocking IO on a file object and (2) no test cases of non-blocking IO in real-world conditions (rather than with mock objects). This shouldn't stop us from fixing the present bug though. > I am not sure, but I think Martin is also right about the second loop. > The max() call should be changed back to "max(self.buffer_size, n))", > like in the 2nd patch. Ok. Could you produce an updated patch? :) _______________________________________ Python tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://bugs.python.org/issue2523> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
