On 2005-06-10, Donn Cave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Grant Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On 2005-06-10, Mage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >>py> file_list = os.popen("ls").read()
>> >>
>> >>Stores the output of ls into file_list.
>> >>
>> > These commands invoke shell indeed.
>>
>> Under Unix, popen will not invoke a shell if it's passed a
>> sequence rather than a single string.
>
> I suspect you're thinking of the popen2 functions.
According to the current module reference, that's the behavior
of the os.popen*() functions:
http://docs.python.org/lib/os-newstreams.html#os-newstreams
> On UNIX, os.popen is posix.popen, is a simple wrapper around
> the C library popen. It always invokes the shell.
Not according the the docs:
Also, for each of these variants, on Unix, cmd may be a
sequence, in which case arguments will be passed directly to
the program without shell intervention (as with os.spawnv()).
If cmd is a string it will be passed to the shell (as with
os.system()).
It's not exactly clear what "these variants" refer to, but I
read it as referring to all of the the os.popen functions.
Perhaps it only refers to os.popen[234]?
> The no-shell alternatives are spawnv (instead of system) and
> the popen2 family (given a sequence of strings.)
>
> Donn Cave, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! FIRST, I'm covering
at you with OLIVE OIL and
visi.com PRUNE WHIP!!
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
