RetroSearch Browse

Sun Dec 5 01:26:47 CET 2010 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-December/106446.html

On 12/4/2010 3:07 PM, Paul Moore wrote:
> The original goal was for subprocess to replace os.system, os.popen,
> os.spawn, etc. That's never quite happened because subprocess is just
> a little bit too conceptually complex for those basic tasks.

Is that way?  I didn't find it particularly hard to learn, given the 
"cheat sheet" of techniques for doing the replacements.

However, it is a bit deficient in providing non-blocking handling 
primitives for actually communicating with interactive spawned 
programs.  subprocess.communicate provides one technique, which works 
for an extremely limited set of circumstances: I've offered some 
alternatives in http://bugs.python.org/issue10482 that greatly expand 
the types of communications that can be achieved without deadlock.  Of 
course, it is still a small fraction of the possible circumstances, and 
doesn't really handle the hard case of feeding a program and 
concurrently analyzing its output to determine its future feedings: that 
still requires a complex, explicitly threaded and synchronized program.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20101204/381f1e56/attachment.html>

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2010-December/106446.html below:

[Python-Dev] r87010 - in python/branches/py3k: Doc/library/subprocess.rst Lib/subprocess.py Lib/test/test_subprocess.py