Phillip <phil...@infiniteautomation.com> added the comment: I could definitely understand that. After all, if it's slightly askew (or strikes some as such) it forces critical thinking, which is good. I didn't think calling run() was indicative of the three likely pathways to handle the client socket in the following paragraph.
I'm indifferent, I just saw something so I said something, but ultimately I think you guys do a tremendous job keeping this documentation good. Thanks, On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 10:44 AM, R. David Murray <rep...@bugs.python.org> wrote: > > R. David Murray <rdmur...@bitdance.com> added the comment: > > Or maybe instead of client_handler/run, it should be something like > handle_client_asynchronously(clientsocket). > > ---------- > > _______________________________________ > Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> > <https://bugs.python.org/issue31717> > _______________________________________ > ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue31717> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
