BaseProtocol docstring describes it as an "ABC for base protocol class", but it is not actually an ABC in the technical sense.

Good question. I don't mind making these ABCs, but I don't think it's necessary to do it before beta1 (since it won't matter for most people).

I don't think it's necessary either. They don't *need* to be ABCs, but if they aren't the docstring should be fixed :)

I'm not sure that "ABC" implies "an instance of abc.ABC". It's still an abstract base class (in the usual definition of that concept) even if it doesn't enforce anything.

I propose to close this as wontfix.

Well, IMHO it's better spelt "base class" if it isn't technically an ABC. At least I was personally a bit surprised at first.

Well, it *is* abstract because it has no implementations and all the
methods raise NotImplementedError. We can do better in the .rst docs though.

> Well, it *is* abstract because it has no implementations and all the
> methods raise NotImplementedError. We can do better in the .rst docs though.

I didn't know what to do with it, so I didn't mention it at all in
the .rst docs :-)

> Well, it *is* abstract because it has no implementations and all the
> methods raise NotImplementedError.

Hmm, actually, the methods don't raise NotImplementedError, they just have default empty implementations.

You're right, I commented previously without reading the context.  The classes defined in protocol.py are not ABCs, they are just base classes (and not mandatory, just convenient, because the transport *will* assume all methods are implemented, and call them without checking or catching NotImplementedError).  I will correct the docstrings.

New changeset 5469e1a68dbd by Guido van Rossum in branch 'default':
asyncio: Use Interface instead of ABC.  Fixes issue 19726.
http://hg.python.org/cpython/rev/5469e1a68dbd