Author rosslagerwall
Recipients amaury.forgeotdarc, beazley, dabeaz, gregory.p.smith, loewis, ned.deily, pitrou, rosslagerwall, roysmith
Date 2011-01-13.20:25:02
SpamBayes Score 1.58215e-07
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <1294950308.72.0.636887108661.issue7322@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
> That complicates things quite a bit,
> especially given that it has to be grafted on at least two layers of the
> IO stack (the raw IO layer, and the buffered IO layer).

Also the TextIO layer I think.

> That's my opinion too. So, instead, of doing the above surgery inside
> the IO stack, the SocketIO layer could detect the timeout and disallow
> further access. What do you think?

So after a timeout occurs the file-object basically becomes worthless? Would it make sense to automatically call the close method of the file-object after this occurs?
History
Date User Action Args
2011-01-13 20:25:08rosslagerwallsetrecipients: + rosslagerwall, loewis, beazley, gregory.p.smith, amaury.forgeotdarc, roysmith, pitrou, ned.deily, dabeaz
2011-01-13 20:25:08rosslagerwallsetmessageid: <1294950308.72.0.636887108661.issue7322@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2011-01-13 20:25:02rosslagerwalllinkissue7322 messages
2011-01-13 20:25:02rosslagerwallcreate