On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 05:02:07 -0700, Nicola Musatti wrote:
> On Sep 1, 9:23 am, Jeremy Banks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi. I wondered if anyone knew the rationale behind the naming of the
>> Popen class in the subprocess module. Popen sounds like the a suitable
>> name for a function that created a subprocess, but the object itself is
>> a subprocess, not a "popen". It seems that it would be more accurate to
>> just name the class Subprocess, can anyone explain why this is not the
>> case?
>
> The Python class is a generalization of the standard Posix function of
> (almost) the same name:
> http://opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007908775/xsh/popen.html
So it's a name of a *function* and it's a little bit unsuitable for a
*class*. As Jeremy wrote: the instances represent *processes* not
"popen"s, whatever that may be.
Ciao,
Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
