The documentation for asynchat needs to be more precise in its use of 
strings vs. bytes.   Unless the undocumented use_encoding attribute is 
set, it seems that all data should be bytes throughout (e.g., the 
terminator, inputs to push methods, etc.).  

I have no idea if the use_encoding attribute is officially blessed or 
not.  However, to avoid "magic behavior", I'm guessing that it would be 
better practice to be explicit in one's use of bytes vs. text rather 
than having take place in the internals of asynchat.   Advice welcome.

Is there anyone with knowledge of asynchat who could provide a patch for this?

Hi,
I would like to propose a patch for this issue.

Hi,
Please review my patch attached.Any comments and feedback are welcome.

Attached patch with some corrections

Hi,
I hvae attached the patch for review.I am waiting for reviewal.Please review the attached patch as soon as possible.

Could you review your patch, there is a mistake in the name of the project, it's asynchat and not asychat. The content seems to be right, not the reference and the title.

Thank you so much for your help.

@Stéphane Wirtel (matrixise)
I am really sorry but i just couldn't find where have i done a typo and have written 'asychat' insstead of asynchat.Will you please help me out in pointing out my error.

In your issue4744_2.patch, the anchor contains 'asychat' and not 'asynchat'.

But then I have submitted another patch issue4744_3 with the corrections.Please review my patch issue4744_3.patch

The change covered by the patch (which patch rejected as garbage, by the way, I have no idea why) has already been applied by Serhiy Storchaka, apparently as a blanket change of 'empty string' to 'empty bytes object'.

There are several other places in the asynchat doc page that mention string.  I suspect that none of them is correct, but I haven't read through the page to be sure.

Ping, what's the status of this issue ? maybe we can close it and open an new one with a new description.

I think it would be okay to keep this issue open to address the other mentions of “strings”.

Nitika’s patch is missing the special --- and @@ indicator lines at the top, which is probably why it was rejected. Usually you make a patch by using a “diff” command (standalone, with Mercurial, etc).

Hi Martin,

About the patch of Nikita, I am going to rewrite it asap.

Will you have time to check it ?

Thanks
-- 
Stéphane Wirtel - http://wirtel.be - @matrixise

Does it make sense to spend time updating the asychat docs when https://docs.python.org/3/library/asynchat.html states "Note. This module exists for backwards compatibility only. For new code we recommend using asyncio."?

Yes.  The docs should be accurate, even if the module is deprecated.

Ok, in this case, I will provide the patch 

On 11/23, R. David Murray wrote:
> 
> R. David Murray added the comment:
> 
> Yes.  The docs should be accurate, even if the module is deprecated.
> 
> ----------
> 
> _______________________________________
> Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org>
> <http://bugs.python.org/issue4744>
> _______________________________________
> _______________________________________________
> Python-bugs-list mailing list
> Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/stephane%40wirtel.be
>

Martin, About the patch of Nikita, this one has already been applied. I have
checked the source.

David, maybe we should close this issue. And open a new one if we find
an other issue in the documentation.

What do you suggest? Should I continue on this issue?

If you've read through the asynchat docs and don't think any of the other mentions of string are incorrect or ambiguous, then we should close it.

For my part, you can close this issue. I have read the asynchat.rst and
asynchat.py files and think the rest of the documentation is clear.

OK, let's close it then.  If someone finds something wrong they can open a new issue.