[issue6490] os.popen documentation in 2.6 is probably wrong

[Benjamin Peterson]

Benjamin Peterson <benjamin at python.org> added the comment:

I have no idea either. It seems os.popen is now a hacked up to use
subprocess, so it seems intentional to keep it. Guido, you made this
change; is os.peopen supposed to be gone in 3.x?

----------
nosy: +gvanrossum

_______________________________________
Python tracker <report at bugs.python.org>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue6490>
_______________________________________