Let’s please leave this alone. As Serhiy says run() covers everything. On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 3:03 AM Oleg Broytman <p...@phdru.name> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 07:44:29PM +1100, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 7:12 PM Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 4, 2019 at 12:48 AM Greg Ewing < > greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz> wrote: > > > > > > > > The check_output() function of the subprocess module raises an > > > > exception if the process returns a non-zero exit status. This is > > > > inconvenient for commands such as grep that use the return > > > > status to indicate something other than success or failure. > > > > > > > > The check_call() function has a companion call(), but here is > > > > currently no non-checking companion for check_call(). How > > > > about adding one with a signature such as > > > > > > > > output(args) --> (status, output) > > > > > > Isn't this already available as: run(args, stdout=PIPE)? Is the object > > > to the extra typing, or...? > > > > > > > Or discoverability. If you want to run a subprocess and catch its > > output, you'll naturally reach for check_output, and it feels clunkier > > to have to use run() instead. > > > > +1 on adding a nice simple function, although I'm not 100% sold on the > > name "output". > > get_output ? > > > ChrisA > > Oleg. > -- > Oleg Broytman https://phdru.name/ p...@phdru.name > Programmers don't die, they just GOSUB without RETURN. > _______________________________________________ > Python-ideas mailing list > Python-ideas@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas > Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ > -- --Guido (mobile)
_______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
