I am not Cc:ing c.l.py for fear of flooding this discussion (and also
for having a thread from hell for me to summarize later =).
P at draigBrady.com wrote:
> I've written a couple of apps that required
> running a command and grabbing the output,
> and I've found the existing interfaces problematic for this.
>
> I think the proliferation of functions and classes
> in the popen2 module illustrates the problem
> (popen2.{popen2,popen3,popen4,Popen3,Popen4})
> Now if I want to read both stdout and stderr
> seperately then it's awkward to say the least
> to implement that without deadlocking using
> the popen2 module. Also the multiplexing of
> stdout and stderr in popen4 and commands.getoutput
> is not usually what one requires IMHO.
>
How does this compare to popen5 and PEP 324
(http://www.python.org/peps/pep-0324.html)? If it doesn't solve your
problem perhaps you can work with Peter Astrand and get it rolled into
the PEP so that there is a single popen replacement in development.
-Brett
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