Your note is amusing. Saying an exception is not handled, but not saying what should be done by the handler. Simultaneously admitting not knowing about sockets and criticizing its "up-to-dateness". I guess you mean correctness.
As an example , SocketStreamTest>setUp sends connectTo:port: which will end up using the standard timeout and may raise an exception; but the test code then explicitly does some wait method (which actually re-runs the very same lower-level code and may raise the same exceptions!) and other stuff. That looks to me like out of date code that will fail oddly with current Socket code. Tests and other examples really ought to be up to date and correct so we can rely upon them to work and to explain how to Do It Right.
In fact, the Socket test setup is not failing. It's simply that you need to give it some more thought, maybe step through the method, write a Sockets program or look at an existing one.
Then, I think, all of your questions will be answered.
As I say, I really don’t know Sockets. If someone loves Sockets and feels like fixing them up, I’d suggest starting by looking at senders of #connectTo:port: and spreading out from there. And maybe you could wave your hand and volunteer to help me out...
Funny! Okay, I'll get right on that! :)
tim
tim Rowledge; tim@rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim M$ are grinning pigs in a sea of buggy code - The Inquirer