traverseda
/
cpython
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Releases Wiki Activity

bpo-13826: Clarify Popen constructor example (GH-18438) 

Clarifies that the use of `shlex.split` is more instructive than
normative, and provides a simpler example.

https://bugs.python.org/issue13826
(cherry picked from commit 95d024d585)

Co-authored-by: Tim D. Smith <github@tim-smith.us>
This commit is contained in:
Miss Islington (bot) 2020-02-10 14:56:14 -08:00 committed by GitHub
parent a12effde34
commit 78982f94fa
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG Key ID: 4AEE18F83AFDEB23
1 changed files with 8 additions and 2 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

10
Doc/library/subprocess.rst
View File

@ -354,14 +354,20 @@ functions.
arguments for additional differences from the default behavior. Unless
otherwise stated, it is recommended to pass *args* as a sequence.
An example of passing some arguments to an external program
as a sequence is::
Popen(["/usr/bin/git", "commit", "-m", "Fixes a bug."])
On POSIX, if *args* is a string, the string is interpreted as the name or
path of the program to execute. However, this can only be done if not
passing arguments to the program.
.. note::
:meth:`shlex.split` can be useful when determining the correct
tokenization for *args*, especially in complex cases::
It may not be obvious how to break a shell command into a sequence of arguments,
especially in complex cases. :meth:`shlex.split` can illustrate how to
determine the correct tokenization for *args*::
>>> import shlex, subprocess
>>> command_line = input()