Jean-Paul Calderone wrote: > On Sun, 22 Oct 2006 19:58:44 +0200, Irmen de Jong > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Jean-Paul Calderone wrote: >>> I think everyone can agree that Python shouldn't crash. >> >> Well, it doesn't really crash in a bad way, in my example: >> it doesn't work because it simply raises a socket exception all the time. > > Okay. I assumed you meant the interpreter died with a SIGSEGV or something > similar. If the call simply raises an exception, then I'm not sure I see > a real problem here.
Hmm.. it is not supposed to raise the exception (the code is valid but just breaks on windows or VMS). On the other hand, the underlying platform goes bad and what else could Python do? (at this point) > What'd be really nice is a direct wrapper around recv(2), send(2), etc, > with a simple socket-object layer on top of that, with timeouts or error > handling layered on top of that. I agree, that would be nice indeed. --Irmen -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
