Message225917
This seems like a good idea, based on the use case presented in the stackoverflow question.
This would be an enhancement, so it can only go in 3.5.
Please submit a patch without the pep 8 changes, so we can easily see what the patch is actually changing. As far as the API goes, since the controls are passed to subprocess, might it be a good idea to make the API for these keywords the same as the one subprocess uses? |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2014-08-26 13:20:28 | r.david.murray | set | recipients:
+ r.david.murray, CristianCantoro |
2014-08-26 13:20:28 | r.david.murray | set | messageid: <1409059228.2.0.127109257878.issue22277@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2014-08-26 13:20:28 | r.david.murray | link | issue22277 messages |
2014-08-26 13:20:28 | r.david.murray | create | |
|