On Nov 4, 4:43 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek- central.gen.new_zealand> wrote: > In message > <0f1a17f4-b6a9-4e89-ac26-74b1098a0...@b19g2000prj.googlegroups.com>, goodman > wrote: > > > Hi, I'm wondering why subprocess.Popen does not seem to replace the > > current process, even when it uses os.execvp (according to the > > documentation: > >http://docs.python.org/library/subprocess.html#subprocess.Popen). > > You’ll notice that in the list at the top of the functions that subprocess > replaces, there are no os.exec* entries. subprocess is only for spawning new > processes; if all you need to do is an exec, do an exec > <http://docs.python.org/library/os.html#process-management>; subprocess > can’t offer anything to make that any simpler.
Thanks Lawrence. Forgive my recent followup, as I posted it before I saw your message. I noticed that the exec*s were not replaced by subprocess, so that makes sense to just use exec. Though I'm still a little confused how, if subprocess.Popen is using os.execvp, it still maintains control of things like interrupts. Anyway, my problem is solved. Thanks! -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
