Guido van Rossum wrote:
> This is why I proposed to *get rid of* the distinction between
> timeout=None and timeout not specified. Let an unspecified timeout
> default to None, and if timeout is None, skip the settimeout() call.
+1
I'll abuse of your dictatorship, and let's see if we can finall
On 3/21/07, Facundo Batista <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Guido van Rossum wrote:
>
> > (like httplib before the patch), I am personally in favor of going
> > back to defaulting timeout to None and skipping the settimeout() call
> > in _create_connection() if timeout is None. IMO the use case where
Guido van Rossum wrote:
> (like httplib before the patch), I am personally in favor of going
> back to defaulting timeout to None and skipping the settimeout() call
> in _create_connection() if timeout is None. IMO the use case where
> there is a global timeout set and one library wants to overrid
On 3/21/07, Terry Reedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Josiah Carlson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >Alan is off his rocker.
>
> To me, this sort of ad hominen comment is anti-productive and out-of-place
> in technical discussion.
>
> "Facundo Batista" <[EMAIL
"Josiah Carlson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Alan is off his rocker.
To me, this sort of ad hominen comment is anti-productive and out-of-place
in technical discussion.
"Facundo Batista" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>It's better
