[Josiah] > In regards to 'there is no way to > create a blocking socket this way', Alan is off his rocker.
I am not off my rocker. And I never wrote the words you place in quotes (except in relation to an earlier defect in the patch where the timeout=None value was ignored). What I clearly stated is that the function as is doesn't cater for *non-blocking* sockets. I also clearly stated that I have no problem with the fact that it doesn't handle non-blocking sockets, but this either A: Needs to be enforced in the function by disallowing zero timeouts B: Needs to be recorded in the documentation The use cases for the function are limited: that's fine. But either explicitly limit them or document those limits. > The function is needed, and the implementation is sufficient for its > intended uses. When all the defects are fixed, it will be sufficient. Alan. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
