Message333225
| Author |
vstinner |
| Recipients |
nanjekyejoannah, pablogsal, serhiy.storchaka, vstinner |
| Date |
2019年01月08日.11:51:18 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1546948278.5.0.571013730645.issue35674@roundup.psfhosted.org> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content |
I'm ok to expose posix_spawnp() as os.posix_spawnp().
Even if we expose posix_spawnp() as os.posix_spawnp(), we can still reconsider to add posix_spawnp() feature into os.posix_spawn() as an optional keyword parameter later :-) Honestly, I have no strong preference for the API. My main problem with the keyword option is the risk of name conflict if a new feature is added to posix_spawn() with a name similar to my proposed name "use_path". |
|