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

Subject: Re: [boost] [gsoc] Boost.Process done
From: Boris Schaeling (boris_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-02-09 17:46:30

On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 22:37:59 +0100, Claude Quézel <cquezel_at_[hidden]>  
wrote:

> I noticed that the boost::process::child does not have a default
> constructor. If I have a coding requirements like the following
> example, I would be stuck:
>
>
>
> // Note the required default constructor
> boost::process::child child;

If I remember correctly, originally the idea was that a child instance  
always represents a live child process. You would always need to use a  
factory function like create_child() to get a child instance. But then of  
course when a child process terminates a child instance does not  
automatically disappear. So it's a bit difficult to argue against a  
default constructor on that ground. :)

Looking at the code I think it should be no problem either to add a  
default constructor (also to child's parent class process). If it helps  
and if there is no good reason against it I'll add a default constructor?

Boris

> [...]