Haven't really read the PEP/tried the module, so I can't comment on it specifically, but +1 on a proper subprocess module. Implemented something like this myself some time ago.
Peter Astrand wrote:
Am I missing something? Can these be renamed now before it gets standardized?
I'd prefer not to rename the call() function. The name is short and simple, and the function is very much used. I'm positive to renaming the callv() function, though. One obvious name would be "calll", but that's quite ugly. How about "lcall"? Then we can keep the "callv" name for backwards compatibility.
Don't think backwards compatibility is that much of an issue. Since you're renaming it subprocess (+1 on the name) old code will have to be updated anyway.
-1 on function names conflicting with the exec/spawn way of naming things.