Re: [boost] Subject: Formal Review of Proposed Boost.Process library starts tomorrow

Subject: Re: [boost] Subject: Formal Review of Proposed Boost.Process library starts tomorrow
From: Ilya Sokolov (ilyasokol_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-02-09 02:25:13

On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 04:23:55 +0500, Vicente Botet wrote:
> Boris Schaeling wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>>> [...]Instead of just defining them for POSIX
>>>
>>> #if defined(BOOST_POSIX_API)
>>>     pipe()  : stype_(unknown_stream)  { }
>>>     pipe(stream_type stype) : stype_(stype)  { }
>>> #endif
>>>
>>> You can add the respective constructors for WINDOWS, even if the
>>> parameter
>>> is completely ignored.
>>>
>>> #if defined(BOOST_WINDOWS_API)
>>>     pipe() { }
>>>     pipe(stream_type /*stype*/)  {    }
>>> #endif
>>>
>>> The same applies to all the behaviors using stream_type.
>>
>> The use case would be to create a stand-alone pipe outside of
>> Boost.Process? If so I wonder whether we should (additionally?) provide
>> something else than stream behaviors. They are pretty much tailored for
>> Boost.Process. I'm fine with making the constructors available on all
>> platforms. But it's not nice that you get a stream_ends object with a
>> parent and child end when you actually want to create a pipe with a read
>> and write end?
>
> Yes this exactly why I was proposing that these constructors must be
> protected and used only by the implementation as the correct use can be
> possible as undocumented.

AFAICS, you proposed something else, not that 'these constructors
must be protected...'

> [snip]