On Tue, Sep 02, 2008 at 12:27:49PM +0000, Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch wrote: > > 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.
I would argue that they don't represent processes at all; the object is a set of files which connect the standard I/O streams of a subprocess to its parent, and methods to operate on those files. The C library's popen() function, on which this class is based, provides a means to open a file and connect it to the standard steams of a subprocess, making it more closely analogous to what the Popen class does/provides. As such, "Popen" is a better name to describe this object than "subprocess" would be. -- Derek D. Martin http://www.pizzashack.org/ GPG Key ID: 0x81CFE75D
pgpR91MGDIrTx.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
