Guido van Rossum added the comment: 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 <rep...@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 <rep...@bugs.python.org> > <http://bugs.python.org/issue1641> > _______________________________________ ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue1641> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
