Message333225
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". |
|
Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
2019-01-08 11:51:20 | vstinner | set | recipients:
+ vstinner, serhiy.storchaka, pablogsal, nanjekyejoannah |
2019-01-08 11:51:18 | vstinner | set | messageid: <1546948278.5.0.571013730645.issue35674@roundup.psfhosted.org> |
2019-01-08 11:51:18 | vstinner | link | issue35674 messages |
2019-01-08 11:51:18 | vstinner | create | |
|