PEP 787: Safer subprocess usage using t-strings

[nhumrich]

Basic requirements (all PEP Types)

• Read and followed PEP 1 & PEP 12
• File created from the latest PEP template
• PEP has next available number, & set in filename (pep-NNNN.rst), PR title (PEP 123: <Title of PEP>) and PEP header
• Title clearly, accurately and concisely describes the content in 79 characters or less
• Core dev/PEP editor listed as Author or Sponsor, and formally confirmed their approval
• Author, Status (Draft), Type and Created headers filled out correctly
• PEP-Delegate, Topic, Requires and Replaces headers completed if appropriate
• Required sections included
  • Abstract (first section)
  • Copyright (last section; exact wording from template required)
• Code is well-formatted (PEP 7/PEP 8) and is in code blocks, with the right lexer names if non-Python
• PEP builds with no warnings, pre-commit checks pass and content displays as intended in the rendered HTML
• Authors/sponsor added to .github/CODEOWNERS for the PEP

Standards Track requirements

• PEP topic discussed in a suitable venue with general agreement that a PEP is appropriate
• Suggested sections included (unless not applicable)
  • Motivation
  • Rationale
  • Specification
  • Backwards Compatibility
  • Security Implications
  • How to Teach This
  • Reference Implementation
  • Rejected Ideas
  • Open Issues
• Python-Version set to valid (pre-beta) future Python version, if relevant
• Any project stated in the PEP as supporting/endorsing/benefiting from the PEP formally confirmed such
• Right before or after initial merging, PEP discussion thread created and linked to in Discussions-To and Post-History

---

📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://pep-previews--4368.org.readthedocs.build/

[python-cla-bot]

All commit authors signed the Contributor License Agreement.

[JelleZijlstra]

@ncoghlan could you confirm that you're sponsoring this PEP?

[ncoghlan]

Yep, I'm a co-author, as the updated PEP is derived from the material we had on this topic in PEP 501 (just reworked by @nhumrich to be cite PEP 750 as the foundation - the two PEPs ended up close enough together that the switch didn't actually change the overall design concept)

[ncoghlan]

Assorted inline comments for suggestions, but nothing that I consider merge blocking.

The main themes behind the suggestions are:

• placing more emphasis on the improved ergonomics of the shell=False invocations
• being more consistent in noting the limitations on the non-POSIX system shell support

[nhumrich]

I believe I have resolved all requested changes as pertaining to the document itself. There are some lingering questions that are not resolved, that have more to do with the viability of the PEP getting accepted rather than the contents of the PEP itself. I went ahead and resolved those so that we can merge, and those conversations can happen in a more public venue where the community can all opine.

[hugovk]

Thank you for the PEP, merged!

Please open the discussion thread then open a quick PR to add it to the Discussions-To and Post-History fields.