> Rather than temporarily > making it blocking by whatever means, some indication needs > to be returned that the operation would block, and a way > provided for the calling code to re-try later. > > If that can't reasonably be done, then passing a non-blocking > socket here should be an error. I tend to agree with you. At this point, we're executing bad code, because passing in a non-blocking socket and asking the routine to do the handshake is self-contradictory. Checking for this condition and raising an exception would probably be best. Other opinions. > > But my mother taught me never to test for equality against > > floating-point zero. > > That doesn't apply here. If a float is explicitly set to 0.0 > you can reasonably expect it to test equal to 0.0. The caveat > only applies to results of a calculation, which may incorporate > roundoff errors. Yep. Sorry, meant to imply that with the next sentence. Bill
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