Slightly misleading documentation for read_events

[hannobraun]

Slightly misleading documentation for read_events

[hannobraun]

Good catch, thank you! I'll correct this the next time I work on this project (which might take a good number of months). If someone wants to create a pull request in the meantime, that would be very appreciated.

Edit: To clarify, I think the problem here is that the documentation is wrong, not the code.

[zacheryph]

I would not consider this a problem or bad documentation? The underlying EAGAIN and EWOULDBLOCK are error codes, but I would not call them error conditions.

As well, the documentation does already clearly state that an empty iterator is returned if nothing is available. It also says to use read_events_blocking if you want at least one result. EAGAIN and EWOULDBLOCK say "nothing is available without blocking". There is in fact no error condition though.

[hannobraun]

@zacheryph I think you're right, strictly speaking, but in my experience, it usually helps if documentation is as explicit as possible. I don't consider this issue a big deal at all, but I think it would be an improvement if that one sentence were changed.