> Doesn't seem quite right to me yet - the problem is that if data arrives > 1 byte at a time with just less than the timeout between each byte, then > you can get n*timeout as the actual timeout (where n is potentially very > large). You need to reduce the timeout after each select, surely? I don't think that's a big deal. --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