> Antoine Pitrou <pitrou@free.fr> added the comment:
> 
> > I think this patch (nonblock2.patch) is wrong. If I have a
> > non-blocking server socket on *BSD, and do accept, with no default
> > timeout: IIUC, under the patch, I will get a blocking connection
> > socket. However, according to the operating system API, I'm entitled
> > to get a non-blocking socket (i.e. O_NONBLOCK must be inherited across
> > accept).
> 
> Well, either the defaulttimeout should have the priority over the parent
> socket's settings (your argument in msg125135), or it shouldn't. I'm
> fine with both, but I think any more complicated combination would end
> up puzzling for the user :)

I would add that, since flags inheritance through accept() is
platform-dependent while the default timeout is a well-defined Python
feature, I would lean slightly towards applying the default timeout.