STINNER Victor <vstin...@redhat.com> added the comment:
I'm ok to expose posix_spawnp() as os.posix_spawnp(). Even if we expose posix_spawnp() as os.posix_spawnp(), we can still reconsider to add posix_spawnp() feature into os.posix_spawn() as an optional keyword parameter later :-) Honestly, I have no strong preference for the API. My main problem with the keyword option is the risk of name conflict if a new feature is added to posix_spawn() with a name similar to my proposed name "use_path". ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue35674> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
