Martin Panter added the comment: IMO it might make sense in some cases to disallow subsequent reading from a buffered socket reader (or probably any BufferedReader) that raises an exception (not just a timeout). But the restriction seems unnecessary for unbuffered raw readers, and it also seems to go against the “consenting adults” philosophy for David Murray’s test server case.
David Beazley: For non-blocking sockets, the documentation currently says “the socket must be in blocking mode”. I’m not sure why that restriction is necessary; maybe it could be lifted at least for raw unbuffered streams. Maybe you could make an argument for caching the partial data in the BufferedReader if a timeout (or no more non-blocking data, or other exception) occurs. The biggest problem is that it could mean storing more than the normal buffer size. I would think this would be a new feature (for 3.6+) rather than a behavioural bug fix though. And see also Issue 13322 about inconsistencies with buffered reading non-blocking streams in general. ---------- nosy: +martin.panter _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue7322> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
