On 29 January 2015 at 08:13, Barry Warsaw <barry@python.org> wrote:
> On Jan 28, 2015, at 09:43 AM, Thomas Kluyver wrote:
>
>>Ugh, yes. I would follow that for consistency, though I'd love to come up
>>with a way to clean that up too. The fact that 'decode the output' is
>>spelled 'universal_newlines' is one of my least favourite things about
>>subprocess.
>
> Not me; it's one of those sekrits that ensures Python 3 porters job
> security. ;)

I still suspect we should be offering a simpler way to decouple the
creation of the pipes from the subprocess call, but I have no idea
what that API should look like, and as ugly and unintuitive as it is,
the existing universal_newlines trick does address all of my *actual*
use cases :P

Cheers,
Nick.

--
Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan@gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list
Python-ideas@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/