Yury Selivanov <yseliva...@gmail.com> added the comment:
> I very doubt if any sane code is organizing like this test: start delayed > reading, cancel it and read again. Hm, cancellation should work correctly no matter how "sane" or "insane" the user code is. > The worse, neither previous not current sock_read() implementation doesn't > prevent the concurrent reading which basically delivers data in an > unpredictable order. But we're not discussing using a socket concurrently -- asyncio explicitly does not support that for the sock_ api. AFAICT this issue is about consequent cancel operation not working as expected in asyncio, no? ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue30064> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
