RetroSearch Browse

Thu Mar 22 22:22:48 CET 2007 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2007-March/072282.html

On 3/22/07, Jon Ribbens <jon+python-dev at unequivocal.co.uk> wrote:
> "\"Martin v. Löwis\"" <martin at v.loewis.de> wrote:
> > > And do we even need os.fork(), os.exec*(), os.spawn*()?
> >
> > I don't know about about *os*.fork; I surely like to have posix.fork.
> > The posix module exposes many OS functions as-is. This has the
> > advantage that their semantics are crystal-clear: they do whatever the
> > system call does (which, ideally, is what POSIX specifies for it).
> > So you can do systems programming in Python, and only need good
> > knowledge of the underlying system calls (i.e. using Python as a
> > better C).
>
> I definitely agree. Removing the POSIX system call mappings would make
> Python less useful and general-purpose.
>
> Yes it's nice to have high-level utility functions like those in the
> subprocess module, but I think it's very important for the low-level
> functions to be there too when you need them.

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().

-- 
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2007-March/072282.html below:

[Python-Dev] deprecate commands.getstatus()