Andrew wrote:
....
....
Comments about the text of a PEP should be directed to the PEP author,
whose is the one who would edit it.
The definitive documentation of the subprocess module is, as usual, its
section in the Library manual, as well as the docstring. Those two
should be in sync. PEPs are design and development documents and are
usually not revised once approved and implemented.
It appears PEP 324 is missing the part about check_call():
>
http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0324/ ...
>
http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0324/ ...
In the docstring of subprocess in python 2.5:
>
I don't know if check_call is going to be deprecated, but there still
appears to be a missing function. I'm not sure if this is the correct
way to report errors, but I think it's prudent to keep the
documentation comprehensive.
I don't know if check_call is going to be deprecated, but there still
appears to be a missing function. I'm not sure if this is the correct
way to report errors, but I think it's prudent to keep the
documentation comprehensive.
whose is the one who would edit it.
The definitive documentation of the subprocess module is, as usual, its
section in the Library manual, as well as the docstring. Those two
should be in sync. PEPs are design and development documents and are
usually not revised once approved and implemented.