Author vstinner
Recipients nanjekyejoannah, pablogsal, serhiy.storchaka, vstinner
Date 2019-01-08.11:51:18
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1546948278.5.0.571013730645.issue35674@roundup.psfhosted.org>
In-reply-to
Content
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".
History
Date User Action Args
2019-01-08 11:51:20vstinnersetrecipients: + vstinner, serhiy.storchaka, pablogsal, nanjekyejoannah
2019-01-08 11:51:18vstinnersetmessageid: <1546948278.5.0.571013730645.issue35674@roundup.psfhosted.org>
2019-01-08 11:51:18vstinnerlinkissue35674 messages
2019-01-08 11:51:18vstinnercreate