Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [gsoc] Boost.Process done
From: Boris Schaeling (boris_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-09-02 17:39:27

On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 08:59:02 +0200, Wolfgang Fertsak
<wolfgang.fertsak_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On 01.09.2010 14:37, Stewart, Robert wrote:
>> Here are a couple of thoughts on how you might solve the dilemma:
>> Try the Named Constructor Idiom. One can choose which behavior one
>> wants by invoking a static member function with a suggestive name and
>> requiring whatever arguments are appropriate and returning an instance
>> of the class. That's often clearer than overloading constructors.
>> If it is possible to determine whether a Windows app is being built as
>> a console app versus a GUI app, then you could conditionally compile
>> for one or the other, thus keeping a Windows developer from choosing
>> incompatible behavior.
> Sounds good, thanks!

What exactly sounds good? The first or second proposal? :-)

I think we should go with the first one. Adapting the standard behavior to
a platform is nice, too. However I'm a bit worried that developers expect
a consistent behavior across all platforms.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at