Message183763
| Author | gvanrossum |
|---|---|
| Recipients | akuchling, djarb, facundobatista, forest, giampaolo.rodola, gvanrossum, intgr, j1m, jafo, josiahcarlson, kevinwatters, mark.dickinson, markb, mcdonc, pitrou, python-dev, r.david.murray, stutzbach, terry.reedy, tseaver |
| Date | 2013-03-08.20:08:10 |
| SpamBayes Score | -1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified | Yes |
| Message-id | <CAP7+vJ+1aitYOC-en3Ut8fwRirZx9L9WK4Y_jL48_bRivdpznA@mail.gmail.com> |
| In-reply-to | <1362773022.36.0.851648699085.issue1641@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| Content | |
|---|---|
A new implementation is part of Tulip (tulip/selectors.py); once Tulip is further along it will be a candidate for inclusion in the stdlib (as socket.py) regardless of whether tulip itself will be accepted. I have no plans to work on asyncore. On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Terry J. Reedy <report@bugs.python.org> wrote: > > Terry J. Reedy added the comment: > > Where does this issue stand now? Did the applied sched patch supersede the proposed asyncore patch? Is enhancing asyncore still on the table given Guido's proposed new module? > > ---------- > nosy: +terry.reedy > versions: +Python 3.4 -Python 3.3 > > _______________________________________ > Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org> > <http://bugs.python.org/issue1641> > _______________________________________ |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2013-03-08 20:08:10 | gvanrossum | set | recipients: + gvanrossum, akuchling, terry.reedy, facundobatista, jafo, josiahcarlson, tseaver, mark.dickinson, pitrou, forest, giampaolo.rodola, kevinwatters, djarb, stutzbach, markb, r.david.murray, intgr, mcdonc, j1m, python-dev |
| 2013-03-08 20:08:10 | gvanrossum | link | issue1641 messages |
| 2013-03-08 20:08:10 | gvanrossum | create | |