A Python core developer has requested some changes be made to your pull request before we can consider merging it. If you could please address their requests along with any other requests in other reviews from core developers that would be appreciated.

Once you have made the requested changes, please leave a comment on this pull request containing the phrase I have made the requested changes; please review again. I will then notify any core developers who have left a review that you're ready for them to take another look at this pull request.

I suggest creating namedtuple instances for each of dup2, open, and close in the module and requiring this parameter to be a sequence of those.

Is then ok to bring collections to the os module? I am asking this because is a big dependency.

good point. given that, just define a trio of simple data classes of your own or some constants to indicate open/close/dup2 for use as the first element of a tuple? the "good" thing about os/posix module APIs is that they can be quite low level looking. This is the module providing a relatively raw wrapper of system calls. higher level abstrations to make using them easier often live in other modules.

I have made the requested changes; please review again

Thanks for making the requested changes!

@gpshead: please review the changes made to this pull request.

@pppery Thanks! Corrected in b9db2c8

I have made the requested changes; please review again

Thanks for making the requested changes!

@gpshead: please review the changes made to this pull request.

Also there are trailing spaces added by this PR.

@serhiy-storchaka I am trying to correct all these new issues in Corrected in #6331. Please, notice that some of them (like the result of posix_spawn not checked and the return before _Py_END_SUPPRESS_IPH) were already corrected as this is an outdated diff. Thanks for all the effort with this!