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
> 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 acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk