Roger Binns wrote:
there's a socket.sendall(), so why no socket.recvall()?
BTW socket.sendall() doesn't actually work for large amounts
of data on Windows 2000 and probably other versions of
Windows as well. Eg if you supply a 1MB buffer then you get
an exception based on some internal Windows er
there's a socket.sendall(), so why no socket.recvall()?
BTW socket.sendall() doesn't actually work for large amounts
of data on Windows 2000 and probably other versions of
Windows as well. Eg if you supply a 1MB buffer then you get
an exception based on some internal Windows error code.
I ha
Irmen de Jong wrote:
Subject says it all;
there's a socket.sendall(), so why no socket.recvall()?
[...]
I may even write a patch for socketmodule.c right now :-D
And here it is: the missing socket.recvall().
http://www.python.org/sf/1103213
--Irmen
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-
Robert Brewer wrote:
Irmen de Jong wrote:
Subject says it all;
there's a socket.sendall(), so why no socket.recvall()?
[...]
If you call .makefile() and then .read() the _fileobject, you get the
same behavior (only better). Adding recvall would just duplicate that, I
think. But that's desirable IM
Irmen de Jong wrote:
> Subject says it all;
> there's a socket.sendall(), so why no socket.recvall()?
Good question! Something like:
# Receive reply.
data = []
while True:
try:
chunk = conn.recv(8192)
except Exception, x:
