Message140283
| Author | cool-RR |
|---|---|
| Recipients | benjamin.peterson, cool-RR, cvrebert, eric.araujo, ganadist, giampaolo.rodola, rosslagerwall |
| Date | 2011-07-13.16:23:39 |
| SpamBayes Score | 0.00032664184 |
| Marked as misclassified | No |
| Message-id | <1310574220.27.0.826758939725.issue3177@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| In-reply-to |
| Content | |
|---|---|
Eric, I have no problem with this function being placed in `shutil` instead of `os`, as long as it's implemented and it's in the standard library, and people don't have to use subprocess to run open or xdg-open themselves as I currently do. So I have no problem with renaming this bug to "Add shutil.open". |
|
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2011-07-13 16:23:40 | cool-RR | set | recipients: + cool-RR, giampaolo.rodola, benjamin.peterson, eric.araujo, ganadist, cvrebert, rosslagerwall |
| 2011-07-13 16:23:40 | cool-RR | set | messageid: <1310574220.27.0.826758939725.issue3177@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| 2011-07-13 16:23:39 | cool-RR | link | issue3177 messages |
| 2011-07-13 16:23:39 | cool-RR | create | |