On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 8:31 AM, Michael Torrie <torr...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 07/06/2010 09:34 PM, Chris Rebert wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 6:40 AM, Michael Torrie <torr...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> While it's possible to set up pipes and spawn programs in parallel to >>> operate on the pipes, in practice it's simpler to tell subprocess.Popen >>> to use a shell and then just rely on Bash's very nice syntax for setting >>> up the pipeline. >> >> Until there's a Python variable involved that is, unless you want to >> overlook all the edge cases or do the escaping all by yourself (and >> then pray you did it right). > > Very good point. This is a problem that the pipes module suffers from > as well. > > Although we learned in the other thread on escaping SQL statements that > escaping is faster, easier and just as safe as other parameterization > mechanisms. Uh huh. > > Back on target, a library similar to pipes that was safe (pipes is not) > and had a pythonic syntax would be cool. pipes module works alright, > syntax wise, but it's not a clean syntax.
Actually, your original post inspired me to take a crack at writing something like that yesterday: http://rebertia.com/code/subproc_pipelines.py Thoughts anyone? (Written on a whim, so no tests or docs at present.) Cheers, Chris -- http://blog.rebertia.com -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list