➜

This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

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 20:08:10gvanrossumsetrecipients: + 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