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

[Guido van Rossum]

Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> added the comment:

I am guessing the reason to keep os.popen() (albeit now reimplemented 
using subprocess) is that it is a convenient wrapper for a common use case 
and also familiar.  I see no problem with this.  (Indeed the big problem 
was with the proliferation of popenN with confusing signatures.)  So I 
guess it ought to be documented and removed from the list of deprecations 
in 2.6.

----------

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