Richard Oudkerk added the comment:
> IMHO it just doesn't make sense passing 0.0 as a timeout value.
I have written lots of code that looks like
timeout = max(deadline - time.time(), 0)
some_function(..., timeout=timeout)
This makes perfect sense. Working code should not be broken -- it is the
docsting that should be changed.
I can't think of *any* function taking a timeout which rejects a zero timeout.
See select(), poll(), Condition.wait(), Lock.acquire(), Thread.join(). In each
case a zero timeout causes a non-blocking call.
Also, note that the implementation does not contradict the docstring or
documentation: they say nothing about what happens it timeout is zero (or
negative).
----------
nosy: +sbt
_______________________________________
Python tracker <[email protected]>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue18676>
_______________________________________
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
