Antoine Pitrou <pit...@free.fr> added the comment: > The only way to reliably implement the documented wrap_socket API > might thus be to maintain a flag in PySocketSockObject.
Agreed. With the annoyance that the flag must be exposed to Python code, since ssl's wrap_socket is written in Python. It may be private, though. > Introducing a new and more explicit way of wrapping connected sockets > might be a simpler and more stable solution. I'm a bit wary of API bloat here. > From another perspective: Any user of sockets must be aware that > socket operations can fail at any time. It might thus not be a problem > that wrap_socket fails to fail, as long as the programmer knows how to > catch the failure in the next operation. From that point of view the > problem is that it is surprising and undocumented how getpeercert can > fail. Thanks. So fixing how getpeercert behaves and either raise a dedicated error or return None would improve things here, right? ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue13721> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
