Sorry to send you on such a wild goose chase! I did mean the issue you found #21). I just updated it with a link to a thread that has more news: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/python-tulip/tkinter/python-tulip/TaSVW-pjWro/hCP6qS4eRnAJ
I wasn't able to verify the version by Luciano Ramalho. (And yes, extending all this to working with a subprocess is left as an exercise. It's all pretty academic IMO, given Tkinter's lack of popularity outside IDLE.) <https://groups.google.com/forum/#%21searchin/python-tulip/tkinter/python-tulip/TaSVW-pjWro/hCP6qS4eRnAJ> On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Terry Reedy <tjre...@udel.edu> wrote: > On 5/5/2015 10:59 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote: > >> For this you should probably use an integration of asyncio (which can do >> async subprocess output nicely) with Tkinter. Over in tulip-land there >> is an demo of such an integration. >> > > After redirection from googlecode tulip, I found > https://github.com/python/asyncio/tree/master/examples > None of the 4 *process*.py examples mention tkinter. > > I also found "Create a Tkinter/Tulip integration" > https://github.com/python/asyncio/issues/21 > with attachment tk_ayncio.zip > copied (with 'async' replacing 'tulip') to > > https://bitbucket.org/haypo/asyncio_staging/src/bb76064d80b0a03bf3f7b13652e595dfe475c7f8/asyncio_tkinter/?at=default > > None of the integration files mention subprocess, so I presume you are > suggesting that I use a modification of one of the example subprocess > coroutines with the integration framework. > > If this works well, might it make sense to consider using an elaboration > of examples/subprocess_shell.py to replace subprocess socket communication > with pipe comminication? > > On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 6:03 PM, Terry Reedy <tjre...@udel.edu >> <mailto:tjre...@udel.edu>> wrote: >> > > My specific use case is to be able to run a program in a separate >> process, but display the output in the gui process -- something like >> this (in Idle, for instance). (Apologies if this misuses the new >> keywords.) >> >> async def menu_handler() >> ow = OutputWindow(args) # tk Widget >> proc = subprocess.Popen (or multiprocessing equivalent) >> out = (stdout from process) >> await for line in out: >> ow.write(line) >> finish() >> >> I want the handler to not block event processing, and disappear >> after finishing. Might 492 make this possible someday? Or would >> having 'line in pipe' or just 'data in pipe' translated to a tk >> event likely require a patch to tk? >> > > -- > Terry Jan Reedy > > _______________________________________________ > Python-Dev mailing list > Python-Dev@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > Unsubscribe: > https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/guido%40python.org > -- --Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com