Message306627
I'm hesitant to suggest adding yet-another-option to any subprocess API, but I'm thinking it may be worth it in this case.
The idea is to make it possible to replace:
result = subprocess.run(cmd, stdout=PIPE, stderr=PIPE)
with:
result = subprocess.run(cmd, capture_output=True)
That way, it would be possible for the raw stdin/stdout/stderr parameters to be treated as low level implementation details most of the time, since the most common configurations would be:
# Use parent's stdin/stdout/stderr
result = subprocess.run(cmd)
# Use pipe for stdin, use parent's stdout/stderr
result = subprocess.run(cmd, input=data)
# Use parent's stdin, use pipe for stdout/stderr
result = subprocess.run(cmd, capture_output=True)
# Use pipe for stdin/stdout/stderr
result = subprocess.run(cmd, input=data, capture_output=True) |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2017-11-21 06:13:47 | ncoghlan | set | recipients:
+ ncoghlan, gregory.p.smith |
2017-11-21 06:13:47 | ncoghlan | set | messageid: <1511244827.04.0.213398074469.issue32102@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
2017-11-21 06:13:46 | ncoghlan | link | issue32102 messages |
2017-11-21 06:13:46 | ncoghlan | create | |
|