Hi,

From: "Tanaka Akira" <akr / m17n.org>
> In article <033601c5a9fa$26ba7840$6442a8c0@musicbox>,
>   "Bill Kelly" <billk / cts.com> writes:
> 
> > Wow - the main thing holding back progress on this front is
> > method names?  I could embrace connect_nonblock or nbconnect,
> > there.
> 
> Do you have a problem with threads?
> 
> If you use threads, nonblocking methods are not required in general.
> 
> I'd like to know why people doesn't use threads.

I'm about to head to the airport so I'll just say that
I'm still experimenting.  I sometimes develop a system
with threads, because I think select() was a pain in the
last system I did.  Then I get annoyed with the new
threaded system, and go back to select() on the next one.

I keep encountering trade-offs, and I'm not sure which
way I like best.

> 2. There is no F_GETFL on Windows.
>   Ruby cannot test O_NONBLOCK is set/clear on a fd.  So connect
>   method cannot check O_NONBLOCK.

:(  OK thanks.

Well, what if we were to add a #nonblocking= method to IO,
or at least to Socket?

So the programmer could say:  socket.nonblocking = true

And have Ruby perform the appropriate action behind the 
scenes?


Regards,

Bill