Gregory P. Smith <g...@krypto.org> added the comment:
My concern with this as an API change is if anyone is returning or passing a CompletedProcess instance around it may well be used in a context where None is a potential value. Existing code in that situation would ordinarily be doing a bare `if cp:` test on it to check for None. I don't ordinarily see code that passes a CompletedProcess instance around... but it seems like an annoying potentially breaking change to make for a very small added value. `if cp.returncode:` is very explicit about its intent when read or written. `if cp:` is not, and could even be misread by someone unaware of the API to assume that cp is a number most likely the returncode itself and misunderstand that as "the returncode was non-zero" when it really means the opposite. If we had done this on day one of the run() -> CompletedProcess API this would've been a fine choice. But changing it now doesn't seem like a good idea to me. ---------- versions: -Python 3.9 _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue42468> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
