Thomas Kluyver added the comment: I still feel that having one function with various options is easier to explain than three separate functions with awkward names and limited use cases (e.g. no capturing output without checking the exit code). The tweeter you replied to said he didn't like subprocess.call(). If you really think the trio is a better starting point, though, you're the one with the power to change the docs ;-)
There's more awkwardness in the subprocess API; I suspect that what that tweeter wants is something built around an event loop - like Node - so you can handle output incrementally using events. That's not something that we can easily fix in subprocess, because we don't have a default event loop to attach subprocesses to. ---------- _______________________________________ 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
