Message 99680 - Python tracker

➜

This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author	jhylton
Recipients	Robert.Buchholz, jhylton, r.david.murray, sijinjoseph
Date	2010-02-21.20:23:06
SpamBayes Score	3.0435194e-06
Marked as misclassified	No
Message-id	<e8bf7a531002211223p4ff2941es5240b517f8d87e49@mail.gmail.com>
In-reply-to	<1266642361.4.0.665486577298.issue7806@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>

Content
On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 12:06 AM, R. David Murray <report@bugs.python.org> wrote: > > R. David Murray <rdmurray@bitdance.com> added the comment: > > But the docs (which presumably describe the API) say that the socket is unusable after the call to close, which argues that the paramiko sockets are following the documented API. Do the docs need to be corrected? I mean the documented socket API. Jeremy > ---------- > > _______________________________________ > Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org> > <http://bugs.python.org/issue7806> > _______________________________________ >

On Sat, Feb 20, 2010 at 12:06 AM, R. David Murray
<report@bugs.python.org> wrote:
>
> R. David Murray <rdmurray@bitdance.com> added the comment:
>
> But the docs (which presumably describe the API) say that the socket is unusable after the call to close, which argues that the paramiko sockets are following the documented API.  Do the docs need to be corrected?

I mean the documented socket API.

Jeremy

> ----------
>
> _______________________________________
> Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org>
> <http://bugs.python.org/issue7806>
> _______________________________________
>

History
Date	User	Action	Args
2010-02-21 20:23:08	jhylton	set	recipients: + jhylton, r.david.murray, sijinjoseph, Robert.Buchholz
2010-02-21 20:23:06	jhylton	link	issue7806 messages
2010-02-21 20:23:06	jhylton	create