Re: [boost] [GSoC] Some Ideas about the Boost.Process

Subject: Re: [boost] [GSoC] Some Ideas about the Boost.Process
From: Boris Schaeling (boris_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-03-25 16:51:29

On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 20:42:01 +0100, Felipe Tanus <fotanus_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> [...]I have been thinking about include some basic signal IPC for the
> library. This would help increase the possibilities when a user want
> to do IPC. What do you think about use POSIX or Windows API signals
> according to the machine? This way if the programmer use the
> definitions, we could use an equivalent in other platform. I discovery
> that Windows has only 2 signals which are defined with a different
> number than POSIX, SIGBREAK and SIGABRT. If was not by theses, would
> be trivial define the constants.

As far as I am concerned Boost.Process shouldn't be required to support  
signals. First there are already so many other things to do. Second it's  
true that Windows doesn't support signals at all (apart from those two you  
mentioned and I think SIGFPE). You are then in POSIX land anyway? Thus I  
wouldn't care about signals for now.

Boris