Re: [boost] [gsoc] Boost.Process done

Subject: Re: [boost] [gsoc] Boost.Process done
From: Boris Schaeling (boris_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-09-06 13:45:44

On Mon, 06 Sep 2010 03:07:26 +0200, Stewart, Robert  
<Robert.Stewart_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> [...]
>> * this signature: std::pair<handle, handle> (bool). Shall we
>> use std::pair<handle, handle> to return two handles for the
>> child and parent process or a struct with member variables
>> called parent_end and child_end?
>
> A child naturally ensues from a parent, so the order parent then child  
> is easily remembered, though there is no harm in creating a struct that  
> makes the members explicit.

Well, as stream behaviors are all about creating child processes I decided  
to store the child's handle in the "first" member variable of std::pair.  
So much about what people think is natural. :)

>> Shall we use a bool to indicate whether an input or output
>> stream is configured or something else like an enumeration? I
>> think it all depends on how many developers want to define
>> new stream behaviors and if it's worth to make the signature
>> a bit more self-explanatory?
>
> bool is never a good idea for such arguments, regardless of the  
> possibility of extending the set.

It smells a bit like over-engineering to me but then I don't really mind  
to change it. More opinions?

Boris