Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Process 0.5 released
From: Boris Schaeling (boris_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-08-18 14:06:27

On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 18:45:53 +0200, Klaim - Joël Lamotte
<mjklaim_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> [...] 2. I suspect that there are specific reasons why the 'child' class
> isn't
> designed in the same way than std::thread? I think it might have been
> discussed before but I don't remember.
> Is there a rational somewhere about this?

What exactly do you mean if you compare child with std::thread?

> 3. Why do I need to repeat the executable name if I provide the full
> command line? Can I just provide the command line?

Good point, that sounds like a nice improvement!

> 4. I see that some example use lambdas, so C++11 enabled. Why not use
> auto
> too then? I think some of the macro use (related to return types in
> particular) can be removed by using auto.
> Obviously that's true only if the example are meant to use C++11.

Can you give me an example what you are referring to? It's not a macro
like WEXITSTATUS I guess (as they are POSIX-only)?

> 5. It is not clear to me what you mean by "resources" in the "Cleaning
> up
> resources" part? I just read this and I'm guessing that it's for solving
> the problem of zombie process?

Yes, it's zombie processes on POSIX and process and thread handles on
Windows. I referred to both of them as resources. Any other idea what to
call them?

Thanks for your quick feedback, :)

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at