So you are changing your mind and withdrawing your option #1.

I don't have the time to really dig deeply into the example app and what's
going on. If you want to help, you can try to come up with a patch (and it
should have good unit tests).

I'll be on vacation most of this week.

On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 9:17 AM, Marco Paolini <report@bugs.python.org>
wrote:

>
> Marco Paolini added the comment:
>
> Asking the user to manage strong refs is just passing the potential
> leak issue outside of the standard library. It doesn't really solve
> anything.
>
> If the user gets the strong refs wrong he can either lose tasks or
> leak memory.
>
> If the standard library gets it right, both issues are avoided.
>
> > I'm all in favor of documenting that you must keep a strong reference to
> a
> > task that you want to keep alive. I'm not keen on automatically keep all
> > tasks alive, that might exacerbate leaks (which are by definition hard to
> find) in existing programs.
>
> ----------
>
> _______________________________________
> Python tracker <report@bugs.python.org>
> <http://bugs.python.org/issue21163>
> _______________________________________
>