[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? [GregE] > 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. Why would someone want the current (as of last night) behavior? IMO it's useless. The distinction with non-blocking mode is very minimal. [Neal] > Another possibility would be to make settimeout(0.0) equivalent to > settimeout(None), ie disable timeouts. Hm, but a zero really does smell more of non-blocking than of blocking. It would also be inconsistent with the timeout argument to select(), which currently uses None for blocking, 0 for non-blocking, and other positive numbers for a timeout in seconds -- just like settimeout(). --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