I'm converting some os.popen calls to use subprocess.Popen. I had
previously been ignoring stdout and stderr when using os.popen. The primary
motivation to switch to subprocess.Popen now is that I now want to check
stderr, so would have to make code changes to use os.popen[34] anyway.
Might as
On 12-01-20 09:42 AM, s...@pobox.com wrote:
I'm converting some os.popen calls to use subprocess.Popen. I had
previously been ignoring stdout and stderr when using os.popen. The primary
motivation to switch to subprocess.Popen now is that I now want to check
stderr, so would have to make
(Apologies for the non-threaded reply. My subscription to the list is
currently set to no-mail and I can't get to gmane.org, so have no clean way
to reply...)
Mike Fletcher wrote:
Definitely *will* block, you have to explicitly set them non-blocking to
have non-blocking behaviour:
...
On Fri, 20 Jan 2012 08:42:16 -0600, skip wrote:
The library documentation doesn't talk a lot about long-lived subprocesses
other than the possibility of deadlock when using Popen.wait(). Ideally, I
would write to the subprocess's stdin, check for output on stdout and
stderr, then lather,
