> Looks like I have missed the war, folks! I will work on the test > suite. The orginal test_timeout.py is incomplete. I actually had > problem when writing test case for accept(), using blocking() and > makefile(). Guido, you are right on the point, the test suite > should work without the timeout code as well. If I've done that ... > > As for the scope of the test suite, I would prefer to focus on socket > timeout test for now. Though there will be overlapping test for socket > timeout test and socket test, we can always merge it later. Thanks, Bernie! > I now have Visual C++ version 6, but still limited to Windows and > Linux. I think once we are done with this two platform, we can ask > people to run the test on other platform. Good idea. > But I agreed with Michael that using python select module put us on > the safer side. But it's too slow. > [Guido] > > - Should sock.settimeout(0.0) mean the same as sock.setblocking(0)? > > > OTOH, a timeout of 0 behaves very similar to nonblocking mode -- > > similar enough that a program that uses setblocking(0) would > > probably also work when using settimeout(0). I kind of like the > > idea of having only a single internal flag value, sock_timeout, > > rather than two (sock_timeout and sock_blocking). > > Agree. Hm, finally someone who agrees with me on this. ;-) > Steve Holden and M.-A. Lemburg have spoken. Can I expect a patch from you or Michael? --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