On 29 January 2015 at 03:47, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:
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,

Presumably that would need some kind of object representing a not-yet-started process. Technically, that could be Popen, but for backwards compatibility the Popen constructor needs to start the process, and p = Popen(..., start=False) seems inelegant.

Let's imagine it's a new class called Command. Then you could start coming up with interfaces like:

c = subprocess.Command(...)
c.stdout = fileobj
c.stderr = fileobj2
# Or
c.capture('combined')  # sets stdout=PIPE and stderr=STDOUT
# Maybe get into operator overloading?
pipeline = c | c2
# Could this work? Would probably require threading
c.stdout = BytesIO()
c.stderr_decoded = StringIO()
# When you've finished setting things up
c.run()  # returns a Popen instance


N.B. This is 'thinking aloud', not any kind of proposal - I'm not convinced by any of that API myself.

Thomas