should these be fixed for python 2.4?

Carlos Ribeiro carribeiro at gmail.com
Mon Oct 4 16:47:11 CEST 2004


On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 15:50:18 +0100, Alexander Schmolck
<a.schmolck at gmx.net> > Yes, that's why I mentioned the need for a
"documented and *reasonably
> reliable*" version in another post (the code also happens to be terribly
> inefficient, but that's presumably not such a big concern).

Shouldn't it be easier (and less contentious) to add the 'run'
function to the commands module? I mean, messing with the os module
may be a little bit harder, because most calls there simply mimic the
standard library calls. Convenience functions (such as run()) could go
elsewhere, and commands is a nice candidate -- you can use it to check
return values, and similar stuff.

Of course -- the docs should be updated, and os.system *should* point
to (commands.run | os.run | whatever) as a good convenience
alternative.

-- 
Carlos Ribeiro
Consultoria em Projetos
blog: http://rascunhosrotos.blogspot.com
blog: http://pythonnotes.blogspot.com
mail: carribeiro at gmail.com
mail: carribeiro at yahoo.com



More information about the Python-list mailing list