From: Julio M. Merino Vidal (jmmv84_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-08-22 10:36:33
On 8/22/06, Joaquin M Lopez Munoz <joaquin_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Julio M. Merino Vidal <jmmv84 <at> gmail.com> writes:
> > Note that the existing "child" cannot magically become "process"
> > because there are some details not available for a non-child process:
> > get_stdin et. al.
> Why not? Aren't these obtainable from ::stdin, ::stdout and
> ::stderr or similar when the process is the current one?
Oh, sure. But I'd like to leave enough room for further expansion to
"generic process management" (i.e., manage any running process). In
that case, the "process" would be the most generic process
representation, from which "child" could inherit. We'd then have a
"current_process" class or something that inherits from "process" too.
> So, if I'm getting you, you'll change your Win32 code so that
> handle_type is a DWORD and can then address my requirement
> that a guarantee is made about handle_type being always an integral
> type, right?
Yes, that's what I'm thinking.
> Additionally, you can make the guarantee that handle_type
> objects are system-wide, which might have some application for
> interprocess identification.
-- Julio M. Merino Vidal <jmmv84_at_[hidden]> The Julipedia - http://julipedia.blogspot.com/
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk