Re: [boost] [iostreams] Why devices must be copy-constructible?

From: Jonathan Turkanis (technews_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-11-07 14:50:42

Alberto Ganesh Barbati wrote:
> Jonathan Turkanis wrote:
>>
>> That was supposed to be:
>> http://www.boost.org/libs/iostreams/doc/index.html?path=3.7
>>
>
> Well... all I see is an empty page with the sentence "[To be supplied
> in the next release]", but I guess the page is simply not up-to-date ;-)

Hmmm ... I think I was trying to make a joke. The point is I never got around
summarizing lifetime issues in one place, and just left a placeholder in the
docs.

> Thanks for your explanation. As you said, it's a pity that we can't
> impose copy-constructibily only in the cases where it's really
> required,
> but the advantage is probably not worth the trouble in terms of effort
> and potential incompatibilies. In the end, I implemented my device
> wrapping the non-copiable part in a shared_ptr, it's not too
> inconvenient.

Good.

> In case you are wondering, I used boost.iostreams to
> provide a stream-like interface to pipes loosely inspired by Python's
> subprocess module
> <http://python.org/doc/2.4.2/lib/module-subprocess.html>. I am going
> to
> post a proposal in a separate thread.

Cool.

> Ganesh

-- 
Jonathan Turkanis
www.kangaroologic.com