Nick Coghlan added the comment: The introduction of run() and its presentation as the preferred interface has effectively reversed much of the progress that had been made in actually making the subprocess module approachable for the simplest use cases like https://twitter.com/fuzzychef/status/798025538237382656 (i.e. the exact case that "subprocess.call()" handles)
It does make sense to have run() as an intermediate tier of complexity between the base trio of call/check_call/check_output, and the full configurability of Popen, so it isn't the introduction of the API itself that's problematic, just the way we're currently presenting it. ---------- priority: normal -> high _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <http://bugs.python.org/issue27050> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
