Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Process 0.5: Another update/potential candidate for an official library
From: Yakov Galka (ybungalobill_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-11-17 06:35:11

On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 1:39 AM, Boris Schaeling <boris_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 15:03:45 +0100, Yakov Galka <ybungalobill_at_[hidden]>
> wrote:
> [...]I prefer concise, minimal and uniform interfaces. This implies:
>> * Use only the set_args, no set_cmd_line.
>> Rationale: consistent with POSIX and the standard argv[] passed to
>> main. Removes the need of run_exe or parsing the set_cmd_line to retrieve
>> the exe name from there.
>> * Leave the behavior in case of embedded quotation marks unspecified. Do
>> not escape quotation marks within the argument.
> set_args() is currently using boost::io::quoted() if a space is found in
> an argument. If I understand correctly, you propose dropping this function
> call?

Yes. The current behavior limits the functionality, as the examples I
provided demonstrate.

> Shall set_args() still check for a space and eventually wrap an argument
> in quotes? Or you think this should also be done by the library user?

The former. Why? Using the same criteria as before — wrapping the argument
in quotes means that one will not be able to specify the whitespace between
the quoted arguments. However, I think that it is a reasonable assumption
that it does not matter what kind of whitespace separates the arguments.

Take the said above with a grain of salt.


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