Great!
On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 5:55 PM, Victor Stinner <[email protected]>wrote: > 2014-02-09 2:45 GMT+01:00 Guido van Rossum <[email protected]>: > > Agreed, mixing the two abstractions doesn't work so great. I don't recall > > the exact use case for accessing the Popen object -- maybe there isn't > one? > > I tried to provide all Popen methods in Process, so I don't see any > need right know. Maybe it's useful on the raw transport. > > > In that case it's an easy decision. Otherwise we may have to document > what > > you are allowed to do with the Popen object -- or else provide a new API > to > > handle the use case (if there is one -- I expect there isn't one though). > > I prefer to drop the attribute instead of documentation that you > should not use it (except if <fill the blank>). > > > The code change doesn't have to be dealt with before RC1 (you can just > rip > > it out of the docs). > > I just removed the attribute in Tulip and Python, Process is new since > Python 3.4 beta 3. > > Victor > -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
