I think the original plan was to reimplement os.popen() on top of subprocess.py as a convenience (the API is an order of magnitude simpler). That still sounds good to me.
On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 2:44 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > IMO os.popen() is wrong here. > > Should os.popen go away entirely? > > Apparently, it does two things: > a) redefine close to block until the child process terminated, > and > b) wrap stdout/stdout with a TextIOWrapper > > If there is an actual need to specify an encoding when communicating > with the subprocess, I'd rather make that parameter to Popen itself. > > Regards, > Martin > -- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/) _______________________________________________ Python-3000 mailing list Python-3000@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000 Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
