Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Process 0.5: Another update/potential candidate for an official library
From: Klaim - JoÃ«l Lamotte (mjklaim_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-11-14 05:33:39
On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Rob Stewart <robertstewart_at_[hidden]>wrote:
> Why must child be copyable? Just because the underlying implementation
> permits it doesn't mean that you must permit it in your abstraction.
I don't understand why it should be either. To me it should be movable
only, and as someone suggested, the id could be copyable as it's only a
As other suggested, to me I will not agree with boost process interface if
it don't provide consistent behaviour between platforms, even if it have
different costs between platforms.
The point is to write the code in one way and then possibly have specific
code if you want to do platform specific code.
In my case I don't case how it works inside as long as I don't have to have
separate code for different platforms.
I thought it was the primary goal of the library?
The suggestions going to default behaviour but optional constructor
arguments to help with platform specific behaviours seems going to the
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk