> Ok. Done. One day, you can explain to me why you despise whitespace > so. Perhaps she was mean to you or something. She's always hanging > around with that tab guy at any rate and they make a bad mix. I like the whitespace use in the English language (like so) best. > Ok. This has been fixed. All read sizes now work and have been tested > by me. Have you written unit tests? That would be really great. Ideally, the tests should pass both before and after your patches. > So, the best way to proceed seems to be: > > if (s->sock_timeout == Py_None) > /* Perhaps do nothing, or just do original behavior */ > else > /* Get funky. Do one of the solutions discussed below */ Yes. > So here are the new semantics: > > If you set_timeout(int/float/long != None): > The actual socket gets put in non-blocking mode and the usual select > stuff is done. > If you set_timeout(None): > The old behavior is used AND automatically, the socket is set > to blocking mode. That means that someone who was doing non-blocking > stuff before, sets a timeout, and then unsets one, will have to do > a set_blocking call again if he wants non-blocking stuff. This makes > sense 'cause timeout stuff is blocking by nature. Sounds good! --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4