Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost-users] Brainstorming [WAS: Subject: Formal Review of Proposed Boost.Process library starts tomorrow]
From: Jeremy Maitin-Shepard (jeremy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-02-12 13:51:54
On 02/11/2011 11:33 PM, Oliver Kowalke wrote:
> I agree - boost.process should provide only the sync. wait (async. wait
> should be left).
> Maybe boost.process or another library can provide the async. wait
> facility and the community has more time to discuss it.
With only synchronous waiting, the library is fairly limited in utility.
I would think that the sort of scripting tasks that synchronous
waiting might be useful for would not likely be done in C++ to begin with.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk