I am implementing the file wrapper using changes to subprocess.Popen that also make it asynchronous and non-blocking so implementing "r+" should be trivial to do. How about handling stderr? I have the following ideas: leave out support for reading from stderr, make it so that there is an optional additional argument like "outputstderr = False", create another function that toggles / sets whether stderr or stdout is returned or mix the two outputs.
Thanks for the input, Eric On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 10:46, Paul Moore <p.f.mo...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2009/7/27 Eric Pruitt <eric.pru...@gmail.com>: > > Hello, > > > > Since there was a bit of confusion last time, I'll start by saying I am > > working on the subprocess.Popen module for Google Summer of Code. One of > the > > features I am implementing is a class so that a running process can stand > in > > in place of a file. For examples, instead of open( "filelist", mode = > 'r') > > one would call ProcessIOWrapper( "ls -l", mode = 'r'). I am trying to > decide > > if I should fully implement the mode argument. Right now, it essentially > > ignores everything but a 'U' indicated universal newlines in the mode > > argument. Should I leave that as is or make it so that things like "r+", > > "w", "a" are handled the way they would be for an actual file? > > I would expect "r" to produce a pipe that reads from stdout of the > subprocess, and "w" to produce a pipe that writes to stdin of the > subprocess. "a" would be the same as "w", and arguably "r+" would be a > bidirectional pipe - read from the subprocess stdout and write to its > stdin. > > I'd be OK with "r+" not being implemented (if it's too hard to avoid > deadlocks) but "r" and "w" should be present. > > Paul. >
_______________________________________________ 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
