Tim Peters wrote:
>
> [Fred L. Drake, Jr.]
> > Tim (& others),
> > Would this additional text be sufficient for the os.popen()
> > documentation?
> >
> > \strong{Note:} This function behaves unreliably under Windows
> > due to the native implementation of \cfunction{popen()}.
>
> Yes, that's good! If Mark/Bill's alternatives don't make it in, would also
> be good to point to the PythonWin extensions (although MarkH will have to
> give us the Official Name for that).
Well, it looks like this thread has fizzled out. But what did we
decide?
Changing the docs to say popen() "doesn't work reliably" is
a little weak. Maybe removing popen() is better, and demanding
that Windows users use win32pipe.
I played around with a patch to posixmodule.c which eliminates
_popen() and implements os.popen() using CreatePipe(). It
sort of works on NT and fails on 95. Anyway, I am stuck on
how to make a Python file object from a pipe handle.
Would it be a good idea to extract the Wisdom from win32pipe
and re-implement os.popen() either in C or by using win32pipe
directly? Using C is simple and to the point.
I feel Tim's original complaint that popen() is a Problem
still hasn't been fixed.
JimA
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