Author Jeff.Hammel
Recipients Jeff.Hammel, barry, cvrebert, ethan.furman, gregory.p.smith, martin.panter, r.david.murray, takluyver
Date 2015-02-10.03:49:21
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1423540163.72.0.841842841705.issue23342@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to
Content
A few observations in passing.  I beg your pardon for not commenting after a more in depth study of the issue, but as someone that's written and managed several subprocess module front-ends, my general observations seem applicable.

subprocess needs easier and more robust ways of managing input and output streams

subprocess should have easier ways of managing input: file streams are fine, but plain strings would also be nice

for string commands, shell should always be true. for list/Tupperware commands, shell should be false. in fact you'll get an error if you don't ensure this. instead, just have what is passed key execution (for windows, I have no idea. I'm lucky enough not to write windows software these days)

subprocess should always terminate processes on program exit robustly (unless asked not too). I always have a hard time figuring out how to get processes to terminate, and how to have them not to.  I realize POSIX is black magic, to some degree.

I'm attaching a far from perfect front end that I currently use for reference
History
Date User Action Args
2015-02-10 03:49:23Jeff.Hammelsetrecipients: + Jeff.Hammel, barry, gregory.p.smith, r.david.murray, cvrebert, ethan.furman, takluyver, martin.panter
2015-02-10 03:49:23Jeff.Hammelsetmessageid: <1423540163.72.0.841842841705.issue23342@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2015-02-10 03:49:23Jeff.Hammellinkissue23342 messages
2015-02-10 03:49:23Jeff.Hammelcreate