Message217001
| Author | giampaolo.rodola |
|---|---|
| Recipients | BreamoreBoy, exarkun, giampaolo.rodola, lekma, nvetoshkin, pitrou, r.david.murray |
| Date | 2014-04-22.12:27:15 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <1398169635.4.0.126957853731.issue21327@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
Generally speaking I think it's fine to have this behavior only if the socket object is instantiated like this: >>> s = socket.socket(type=socket.SOCK_STREAM | socket.SOCK_NONBLOCK) >>> s.type 2049 ...but when it comes to using setblocking() I would not expect that to happen (it's not cross platform). Sounds reasonable? |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2014-04-22 12:27:54 | giampaolo.rodola | unlink | issue21327 messages |
| 2014-04-22 12:27:15 | giampaolo.rodola | set | recipients: + giampaolo.rodola, exarkun, pitrou, r.david.murray, lekma, nvetoshkin, BreamoreBoy |
| 2014-04-22 12:27:15 | giampaolo.rodola | set | messageid: <1398169635.4.0.126957853731.issue21327@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2014-04-22 12:27:15 | giampaolo.rodola | link | issue21327 messages |
| 2014-04-22 12:27:15 | giampaolo.rodola | create | |