I don't want to remove asyncio from the stdlib. Another cycle of provisional status is fine. --Guido (on mobile) On Aug 29, 2015 10:38 AM, "Larry Hastings" <larry at hastings.org> wrote: > > > On 08/28/2015 08:44 AM, Brett Cannon wrote: > > On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 at 08:35 Yury Selivanov <yselivanov.ml at gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Unfortunately, separating it from the standard library is something >> that I don't think we can do so late in the 3.5 release candidates >> process. >> > > Ultimately it's Larry's call, but I don't see why we couldn't. If we were > talking about something as low-level as the urllib package then I would > agree, but beyond its own tests is there anything in the stdlib that > depends on asyncio? > > > I'm flexible here. My concern is shipping high-quality software. > Removing an entire package outright, even at such a late date, is pretty > low-risk. But before I'd allow it, you'd have to get a BDFL pronouncement > (or BDFL-delegate pronouncement). > > > */arry* > > _______________________________________________ > Python-Dev mailing list > Python-Dev at python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > Unsubscribe: > https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/guido%40python.org > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20150829/15318378/attachment.html>
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4