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 <>
In-reply-to <>
A new implementation is part of Tulip (tulip/; once Tulip
is further along it will be a candidate for inclusion in the stdlib
(as 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 <> 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 <>
> <>
> _______________________________________
Date User Action Args
2013-03-08 20:08:10gvanrossumsetrecipients: + 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 20:08:10gvanrossumlinkissue1641 messages
2013-03-08 20:08:10gvanrossumcreate