RetroSearch Browse

Sat Oct 9 19:46:38 CEST 2004 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-October/049292.html

Haven't really read the PEP/tried the module, so I can't comment on it 
specifically, but +1 on a proper subprocess module.  Implemented 
something like this myself some time ago.

Peter Astrand wrote:
>>Am I missing something? Can these be renamed now before it gets
>>standardized?
> 
> 
> I'd prefer not to rename the call() function. The name is short and
> simple, and the function is very much used. I'm positive to renaming the
> callv() function, though. One obvious name would be "calll", but that's
> quite ugly. How about "lcall"? Then we can keep the "callv" name for
> backwards compatibility.

Don't think backwards compatibility is that much of an issue.  Since 
you're renaming it subprocess (+1 on the name) old code will have to be 
updated anyway.

-1 on function names conflicting with the exec/spawn way of naming things.

Erik

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2004-October/049292.html below:

[Python-Dev] Re: subprocess - updated popen5 module