Reacting to:
>>
>> No, I cannot. I just thought of a way to keep users from using
>> "shell=True". I *think* they do it after they experience that
>> "del" for instance is not found. They conclude "ah, I need the
>> shell", which is not true.
> Even putting aside the fact this is pure conjecture,
On 07.01.2018 22:32, Christian Tismer wrote:
Hi Chris,
On 07.01.18 18:18, Chris Angelico wrote:
Redirecting this part of the conversation to python-ideas.
On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 3:17 AM, Christian Tismer wrote:
As a side note: In most cases where shell=True is found, people
seem to need eval
It’s not a good idea. You end up with two different C runtimes in memory that
cannot communicate, and many things will not work properly.
If you compile your debug build extension with the non-debug CRT (/MD rather
than /MDd) you will lose asserts, but otherwise it will work fine and the
quoted
Hi Chris,
On 07.01.18 18:18, Chris Angelico wrote:
> Redirecting this part of the conversation to python-ideas.
>
> On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 3:17 AM, Christian Tismer wrote:
>> As a side note: In most cases where shell=True is found, people
>> seem to need evaluation of the PATH variable. To my un
Redirecting this part of the conversation to python-ideas.
On Mon, Jan 8, 2018 at 3:17 AM, Christian Tismer wrote:
> As a side note: In most cases where shell=True is found, people
> seem to need evaluation of the PATH variable. To my understanding,
>
from subprocess import call
call(("