Greg Ewing wrote: > > Guido: > > > - Should sock.settimeout(0.0) mean the same as sock.setblocking(0)? > > Currently it sets a timeout of zero seconds, and that behaves pretty > > much the same as setting the socket in nonblocking mode -- but not > > exactly. Maybe these should be made the same? > > I'd say no. Someone might want the current behaviour, > whatever it is -- and if they don't, they can always > make it properly non-blocking. Don't make a special > case unless it's absolutely necessary. Another possibility would be to make settimeout(0.0) equivalent to settimeout(None), ie disable timeouts. Neal
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