[Python-Dev] deprecate commands.getstatus() (original) (raw)
Titus Brown titus at caltech.edu
Fri Mar 23 00:21:20 CET 2007
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] deprecate commands.getstatus()
- Next message: [Python-Dev] deprecate commands.getstatus()
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 11:12:26PM +0100, Andr? Malo wrote: -> * Titus Brown wrote: -> -> > On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 02:47:58PM -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote: -> > -> On 3/22/07, Michael Foord <fuzzyman at voidspace.org.uk> wrote: -> > -> > Guido van Rossum wrote: -> > -> > > Sure. os.fork() and the os.exec*() family can stay. But -> > os.spawn*(), -> > > that abomination invented by Microsoft? I also hear -> > no opposition -> > > against killign os.system() and os.popen() -> > -> > -> > -> > Except that 'os.system' is really easy to use and I use it rarely -> > enough -> > that I always have to RTFM for subprocess which makes you -> > jump through -> > a few more (albeit simple) hoops. -> > -> -> > -> So let's add subprocess.system() which takes care of the hoops (but -> > -> still allows you more flexibility through optional keyword -> > -> parameters). -> > -> > How would this differ from subprocess.call()? -> > -> > http://docs.python.org/lib/node530.html -> -> It doesn't implement the system() spec: -> <http://opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007908799/xsh/system.html> -> -> nd
OK, but I'm still confused. This isn't about moving os.system into subprocess, it's about reimplementing os.system with subprocess.Popen, right? And how would that be substantially different from call()? Different defaults? (like shell=True, close_fds=False?)
--titus
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] deprecate commands.getstatus()
- Next message: [Python-Dev] deprecate commands.getstatus()
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]