Yury Selivanov <yseliva...@gmail.com> added the comment: It looks like we have a bug with 'sock.settimeout()' and non-blocking/blocking modes (or maybe this is a feature?)
Currently: * to make a socket non-blocking, we call 'sock.settimeout(0)'. * to make a socket blocking, we call 'sock.settimeout(None)'. What happens if we call sock.settimeout(t), where t > 0? The internal timeout field of the socket object will simply be set to 't'. What happens if the socket was in a non-blocking mode? Nothing, it stays in non-blocking mode. What it means: suppose you have a non-blocking socket. You call socket.settimeout(10), and most likely you wanted to make it blocking again. Because all operations on the socket become blocking from moment (sock_call_ex repeats on EWOULDBLOCK and EAGAIN). Now is having a timeout and blocking send/recv methods on a non-blocking socket a feature? Or is this a bug? ---------- nosy: +njs, pitrou _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue32373> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
