On 2010-07-23, Steven D'Aprano <st...@remove-this-cybersource.com.au> wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 20:18:43 -0700, march wrote:
>
>> Hi, guys.
>>
>> As a regular user of python, I am often annoyed by the fact that the
>> official python docementation is too short and too simple to satisfy my
>> requirement.
>
> Python is a volunteer effort. If the docs don't suit your requirements,
> we're grateful for patches.
>
>> While working with socket, I want to know every detail about every API.
>> I can easilly achieve that by reading man page if the language is C. But
>> It seems that the Python story is different.
>
> Python is open source. Where the documentation is silent, the ultimate
> authority is the source code. Particularly if the code is a thin wrapper
> around the C library, which I expect (but don't know for sure) the socket
> code will be.
>
>
>> For the interface recv(), all I got is only three sentences. "
>> Receive data from the socket. The return value is a string representing
>> the data received. The maximum amount of data to be received at once is
>> specified by bufsize. "
>> http://docs.python.org/library/socket.html#socket.socket.recv
>>
>> What if the call fail?
>
> You will get an exception, just like the page says:
>
> All errors raise exceptions. The normal exceptions for
> invalid argument types and out-of-memory conditions can be
> raised; errors related to socket or address semantics raise
> the error socket.error.
>
>
>> What if the peer close the socket?
>
> You will get an exception,
Nope. You read a value of "".
> just like the Fine Manual says.
If it does say that, it needs to be fixed.
>> I hate this documentation!
Then quit bitching and submit a patch.
> Don't blame the documentation for your failure to read it. It's true
> that it could be improved, but most of your questions were answered
> by the page you linked to.
--
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! I am having FUN...
at I wonder if it's NET FUN or
gmail.com GROSS FUN?
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
