On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 05:02:07 -0700, Nicola Musatti wrote: > On Sep 1, 9:23 am, Jeremy Banks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hi. I wondered if anyone knew the rationale behind the naming of the >> Popen class in the subprocess module. Popen sounds like the a suitable >> name for a function that created a subprocess, but the object itself is >> a subprocess, not a "popen". It seems that it would be more accurate to >> just name the class Subprocess, can anyone explain why this is not the >> case? > > The Python class is a generalization of the standard Posix function of > (almost) the same name: > http://opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007908775/xsh/popen.html
So it's a name of a *function* and it's a little bit unsuitable for a *class*. As Jeremy wrote: the instances represent *processes* not "popen"s, whatever that may be. Ciao, Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list