From: "Mauricio Fernández" <batsman.geo@...>
Date: 2003-02-27T17:24:17+09:00
Subject: Re: Unable to do non-blocking read on socket

On Thu, Feb 27, 2003 at 05:03:37PM +0900, Seth Kurtzberg wrote:
> I have not been able to change the behavior of IO::read() to non-blocking.  
> Calling the fcntl method and setting the NONBLOCK flag (and/or the NDELAY 
> flag) has no effect on the behavior of IO::read().
> 
> This is on a socket.  IO::recv() does not block; however, I can't use 
> IO::recv() because I have already used a buffered read method on the file 
> descriptor.  This causes an exception, not just the unpredictable behavior 
> suggested in the documentation.
> 
> More precisely, if running with the debugger, an exception occurs stating that 
> a previous buffered read has occured on the stream.  If running normally 
> (without the debugger) an exception occurs stating "wrong number of arguments 
> (5 for 4)" during the IO#read() call, which is odd as the method takes only 
> one parameter and a second optional parameter.  Presumably the exception 
> occurs somewhere down the stack; as the method name is not displayed and the 
> behavior changes if the debugger is used, it is rather difficult to know what 
> is going on.
> 
> In any event I need to be able to do a read that doesn't block.

Kernel.select ?
Not really what you're asking for, but...

-- 
 _           _                             
| |__   __ _| |_ ___ _ __ ___   __ _ _ __  
| '_ \ / _` | __/ __| '_ ` _ \ / _` | '_ \ 
| |_) | (_| | |_\__ \ | | | | | (_| | | | |
|_.__/ \__,_|\__|___/_| |_| |_|\__,_|_| |_|
	Running Debian GNU/Linux Sid (unstable)
batsman dot geo at yahoo dot com

         Why use Windows when you can have air conditioning?
         Why use Windows, when you can leave through the door?
	-- Konrad Blum