I could definitely understand that. After all, if it's slightly askew (or
strikes some as such) it forces critical thinking, which is good. I didn't
think calling run() was indicative of the three likely pathways to handle
the client socket in the following paragraph.

I'm indifferent, I just saw something so I said something, but ultimately I
think you guys do a tremendous job keeping this documentation good.

Thanks,

On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 10:44 AM, R. David Murray <report@bugs.python.org>
wrote:

>
> R. David Murray <rdmurray@bitdance.com> added the comment:
>
> Or maybe instead of client_handler/run, it should be something like
> handle_client_asynchronously(clientsocket).
>
> ----------
>
> _______________________________________
> Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org>
> <https://bugs.python.org/issue31717>
> _______________________________________
>