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