Message270155
| Author |
martin.panter |
| Recipients |
SilentGhost, martin.panter, nascheme |
| Date |
2016年07月11日.03:33:28 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1468208009.31.0.303616319347.issue27377@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
Left some minor code review nitpicks.
I opened Issue 27409 with an attempt at documenting exactly which SO_* etc symbols may be available. But so far I haven’t got any positive or negative feedback. If it were up to me, I would either commit everything except the new SO_* constants, or briefly list them in the documentation.
One more thing that occurred to me is maybe we should check for EINVAL from SO_PROTOCOL. That option was apparently added in Linux 2.6.32, and Free BSD 8.4, 9.1, 10.0. Even if you think these version numbers are too old to worry about, what happens if a Python package is compiled with a new (e.g.) OS X or Windows version that supports SO_PROTOCOL, and then run on an old (existing) OS version? |
|
History
|
|---|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2016年07月11日 03:33:29 | martin.panter | set | recipients:
+ martin.panter, nascheme, SilentGhost |
| 2016年07月11日 03:33:29 | martin.panter | set | messageid: <1468208009.31.0.303616319347.issue27377@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2016年07月11日 03:33:29 | martin.panter | link | issue27377 messages |
| 2016年07月11日 03:33:28 | martin.panter | create |
|