On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 09:28:42 -0400, Derek Martin wrote: > 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.
And the process' ID, an attribute with the process' return code, a method to wait until the process is finished and file objects to communicate with the process. > 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. Is strongly disagree. The class provides an interface to start and communicate with a `Subprocess`. Instances stand for processes. With your reasoning the `file` type should be called `open`. Ciao, Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list