[issue6490] os.popen documentation in 2.6 is probably wrong

R. David Murray added the comment: There were an awfully large number of pages of code for a thin wrapper. Granted, half of that was probably os/2 support... -- ___ Python tracker

[issue6490] os.popen documentation in 2.6 is probably wrong

STINNER Victor added the comment: > Victor: did you notice that getoutput and friends call os.popen? Yes, because I wrote a patch to call directly subprocess :-) => see the issue #10197. I don't want to remove os.popen() anymore, it's too much work for a minor gain (we will remove it in Pytho

[issue6490] os.popen documentation in 2.6 is probably wrong

R. David Murray added the comment: > The deprecations for os.popenN() are still fine, since those > APIs are not used all that much, and I'm sure that no one can > really remember what all the different versions do anyway :-) That's good, because those functions are already gone in Python3 :)

[issue6490] os.popen documentation in 2.6 is probably wrong

Marc-Andre Lemburg added the comment: Chris Rebert wrote: > > Chris Rebert added the comment: > > Per msg129958, attached is my stab at a patch to replace most uses of > os.popen() with the subprocess module. The test suite passes on my Mac, but > the patch does touch some specific-to-other

[issue6490] os.popen documentation in 2.6 is probably wrong

Chris Rebert added the comment: Per msg129958, attached is my stab at a patch to replace most uses of os.popen() with the subprocess module. The test suite passes on my Mac, but the patch does touch some specific-to-other-platform code, so further testing is obviously needed. This is my first

[issue6490] os.popen documentation in 2.6 is probably wrong

Marc-Andre Lemburg added the comment: STINNER Victor wrote: > > STINNER Victor added the comment: > > r55334 removed popen2, popen3 and popen4 from the os module from Python 3 > (before the 3.0 release), but not os.popen. > > Python 3.2 has now convenience functions in subprocess to get the

[issue6490] os.popen documentation in 2.6 is probably wrong

STINNER Victor added the comment: The following documentation should also be updated to use the new convenience functions: http://docs.python.org/py3k/library/subprocess.html#replacing-os-popen-os-popen2-os-popen3 -- ___ Python tracker

[issue6490] os.popen documentation in 2.6 is probably wrong

STINNER Victor added the comment: r55334 removed popen2, popen3 and popen4 from the os module from Python 3 (before the 3.0 release), but not os.popen. Python 3.2 has now convenience functions in subprocess to get the output of a program: - check_output() - getstatusoutput() - getoutput() T

[issue6490] os.popen documentation in 2.6 is probably wrong

Éric Araujo added the comment: I will refresh the patch, update it to recommend use as a context manager, and submit the patch here for review before committing. It’s too late for 2.6, though. Benjamin, I hope you won’t mind me taking the assignment from you. -- assignee: benjamin.p

[issue6490] os.popen documentation in 2.6 is probably wrong

Changes by Neil Muller : -- versions: +Python 3.2 ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.py

[issue6490] os.popen documentation in 2.6 is probably wrong

Neil Muller added the comment: The attached patch grabs the os.popen documentation from python 2.7, throws away the deprecation notes, and adds a pointer to subprocess.Popen for more details. -- keywords: +patch nosy: +Neil Muller Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file19674/os_popen_

[issue6490] os.popen documentation in 2.6 is probably wrong

Ezio Melotti added the comment: The function is still marked as deprecated in the 2.x doc and undocumented in 3.x (the function is there, but the description points somewhere else). -- nosy: +ezio.melotti priority: -> normal stage: -> needs patch

[issue6490] os.popen documentation in 2.6 is probably wrong

Georg Brandl added the comment: That is not really a documentation for the function, but a pointer to a section in which there is no documentation for popen. -- ___ Python tracker __

[issue6490] os.popen documentation in 2.6 is probably wrong

krawyoti added the comment: Georg, please note that os.popen *is* documented in 3.1. See attached screen shot. -- Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file14509/docs.png ___ Python tracker ___

[issue6490] os.popen documentation in 2.6 is probably wrong

Amaury Forgeot d'Arc added the comment: By the way, shouldn't the various posix.spawnv* functions be officiall deprecated as well? -- nosy: +amaury.forgeotdarc ___ Python tracker ___

[issue6490] os.popen documentation in 2.6 is probably wrong

Guido van Rossum added the comment: I am guessing the reason to keep os.popen() (albeit now reimplemented using subprocess) is that it is a convenient wrapper for a common use case and also familiar. I see no problem with this. (Indeed the big problem was with the proliferation of popenN wi

[issue6490] os.popen documentation in 2.6 is probably wrong

Benjamin Peterson added the comment: I have no idea either. It seems os.popen is now a hacked up to use subprocess, so it seems intentional to keep it. Guido, you made this change; is os.peopen supposed to be gone in 3.x? -- nosy: +gvanrossum ___ Pyt

[issue6490] os.popen documentation in 2.6 is probably wrong

Georg Brandl added the comment: Actually popen() isn't documented anymore in the 3.1 docs. However, I don't know about the "real" deprecation status. Benjamin? -- assignee: georg.brandl -> benjamin.peterson nosy: +benjamin.peterson ___ Python track

[issue6490] os.popen documentation in 2.6 is probably wrong

Changes by krawyoti : -- type: -> behavior ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.o

[issue6490] os.popen documentation in 2.6 is probably wrong

New submission from krawyoti : The documentation in Python 2.6 claims os.popen is deprecated [1]. This is probably a false claim. I think that at some point os.popen got confused with os.popen2, os.popen3, os.popen4 and the popen2 module, all of which are correctly deprecated. I bring three forw