Ksh-ish functionality on Unix systems

Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams ignacio at openservices.net
Thu Sep 20 23:52:24 CEST 2001


On Thu, 20 Sep 2001, Greg Weeks wrote:

> The low-level support is far too verbose for casual use.  The higher-level
> stuff seems incomplete.  However, the higher-level stuff becomes a lot more
> complete if the command arguments are passed to, say, /bin/sh on Unix
> systems.  In that case, os.system and getstatusoutput capture the above Ksh
> functionality, and os.popen and popen2.* are bonuses.
>
> So: Is it a reasonable approach as a Unix user to rely on the fact that the
> os.system and getstatusoutput commands are passed to a shell?
>
> Or is that tacky?  If that *is* tacky, is there a *convenient* alternative?

Yeah, that's tacky. No, there are no convenient alternatives. Looks like
you're stuck with popen*(), fork(), and the threading module.

-- 
Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams  <ignacio at openservices.net>





More information about the Python-list mailing list