On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 11:12:26PM +0100, Andr? Malo wrote: -> * Titus Brown wrote: -> -> > On Thu, Mar 22, 2007 at 02:47:58PM -0700, Guido van Rossum wrote: -> > -> On 3/22/07, Michael Foord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: -> > -> > Guido van Rossum wrote: -> > -> > > 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() -> > -> > -> > -> > Except that 'os.system' is really easy to use and I use it rarely -> > enough -> > that I *always* have to RTFM for subprocess which makes you -> > jump through -> > a few more (albeit simple) hoops. -> > -> -> > -> So let's add subprocess.system() which takes care of the hoops (but -> > -> still allows you more flexibility through optional keyword -> > -> parameters). -> > -> > How would this differ from subprocess.call()? -> > -> > http://docs.python.org/lib/node530.html -> -> It doesn't implement the system() spec: -> <http://opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007908799/xsh/system.html> -> -> nd
OK, but I'm still confused. This isn't about moving os.system into subprocess, it's about reimplementing os.system *with* subprocess.Popen, right? And how would that be substantially different from call()? Different defaults? (like shell=True, close_fds=False?) --titus _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
