Inquiry regarding the name of subprocess.Popen class

[Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch]

On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 18:15:07 -0400, Derek Martin wrote:

>> Classes represent "things", and class names should be nouns.
> 
> Is that a law?

It's a common guideline.

> Classes are instantiated by invoking their class names as a function
> call -- the computing equivalent of a verb.  Why then, must they be
> named as nouns?  Can you not, in fact, have classes which describe (or
> model) actions?  Wouldn't you name them using verbs if you did?

Me personally no.  I would use `FooAction` instead of `Foo` or something 
similar.  And if they model an action there must be some way to activate 
the action but the instances of `Popen` are no actions.  There's no way 
to "execute" a `Popen` instance.

> That said, this is the most valid point anyone has made...  You should
> have made it when the module was being designed. :-D
> 
> My point is, if you don't think Popen is a good name for the class,
> that's your opinion, but it is only that: an opinion.

Like your opinion that it *is* a good name.

> Yet some of you state your case as if it is incontrovertable fact. 
> I've given a good case as to why it IS a good name (one which I
> genuinely support), and disagree as you may, none of the points any of
> you have made invalidate or even weaken my argument.

Maybe from your POV.  Facts:  It doesn't use the `popen()` function, it 
gives something more complex than a simple pipe (no obligatory shell, up 
to three file objects, more attributes and methods), the function used on 
Windows under the hood is called `CreateProcess()` not `CreatePipe()`.  

`Popen` creates a process and represents a proxy object to communicate 
with it, so `Process` is a good name for that concept/"thing".  It's a 
way more self explaining name, even for people who know the `popen()` 
function because there's a concept called "process" but none called 
"popen".

Ciao,
	Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch