Message160741
| Author | vinay.sajip |
|---|---|
| Recipients | giampaolo.rodola, maker, r.david.murray, terry.reedy, vinay.sajip |
| Date | 2012-05-15.16:25:30 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <1337099131.25.0.703330115786.issue11959@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
> So if we add a map argument to that and only pass it to socket if it > is non-None, wouldn't that maintain backward compatibility with > current asyncore behavior? Sorry I was being a bit dense ... it's been a while since I looked at this. I think you are right that the base create_socket could be changed in this way. I'll work up a patch in my sandbox branch (for easier Rietveld integration). |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2012-05-15 16:25:31 | vinay.sajip | set | recipients: + vinay.sajip, terry.reedy, giampaolo.rodola, r.david.murray, maker |
| 2012-05-15 16:25:31 | vinay.sajip | set | messageid: <1337099131.25.0.703330115786.issue11959@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2012-05-15 16:25:30 | vinay.sajip | link | issue11959 messages |
| 2012-05-15 16:25:30 | vinay.sajip | create | |