> On Sun, Jul 25, 2010 at 11:42 PM, Chris Rebert <py...@rebertia.com> wrote: >> Hello, >> >> I'd like to propose formally marking os.system() as deprecated in the >> docs for next release of Python (v3.2 ?). >> >> The docs for os.system() /already/ include the following paragraph, >> which is basically tantamount to calling system() deprecated and very >> much resembles the deprecation notes for the os.popen*() family. >> """ >> The subprocess module provides more powerful facilities for spawning >> new processes and retrieving their results; using that module is >> preferable to using this function. Use the subprocess module. Check >> especially the Replacing Older Functions with the subprocess Module >> section. >> """
Emphasizing the following paragraph from my original email: >> I'm merely suggesting slapping a formal ".. deprecated::" tag & box >> around this paragraph to make system()'s status more obvious. I am >> ***not*** suggesting the function be scheduled for removal or anything >> like that. >> >> I figure since this would be a substantive change (the docs currently >> don't outright say "deprecated"), it would need dev approval, hence >> this message. I've already written the absolutely /trivial/ docs >> patch. >> >> So, any objections? On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 7:29 AM, Guido van Rossum <gu...@python.org> wrote: > Unless, it's as simple as replacing "os.system(x)" with > "subprocess.system(x)", I'm against this removal of a handy shorthand. [Addressing Steven's reply as well] In hindsight, I should have used a word other than "deprecate" (despite no longer matching the Sphinx directive) that's not overloaded with Python baggage about removal; I intended it here in its plain English meaning of merely "to express disapproval of" or "to play down". Allow me to reiterate: I am *NOT* suggesting os.system() be removed or prepared for removal. I'm only suggesting the docs be /slightly/ tweaked to make it /slightly/ more obvious that os.system() is dispreferred over the subprocess module. Removing os.system() would have backward compatibility and cross-language API problems; I agree it would be a bad idea; which is why I'm not proposing that. > Ditto for popen. Funny you should bring up os.popen(). Its docs are currently MIA in 3.x, for unclear reasons: http://bugs.python.org/issue9382 Cheers, Chris > -- > --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido) _______________________________________________ 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
