I've been watching the progression of subprocess with some interest. It looks encouraging, and is exactly the sort of thing I need for my work.
One small nit I've noticed: aren't the names of subprocess.call() and subprocess.callv() reversed? If you look at unix execl() and execv(), execl() takes a variable-length argument list and execv() takes a list (vector?) of arguments. But it's the opposite for subprocess -- callv() takes a variable-length arg list and call() takes a list of args.
Oh. Yes, you are right.
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.
Or, we could just keep the "callv" name, and pretend that "v" stands for "variable number of arguments".
/Peter Åstrand firstname.lastname@example.org