Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Process 0.5: And another minor update
From: Boris Schaeling (boris_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-12-11 18:33:05

On Sun, 09 Dec 2012 19:53:41 +0100, Joshua Boyce
<raptorfactor_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> [...]I'm a little concerned by one of the changes you mentioned however,
> specifically this one:
>> No escaping of command line arguments anymore with set_args
> I'm concerned because under Windows at least, the way that command line
> arguments are escaped is quite important (and also difficult to get
> right).
> Does your library correctly handle all the example cases given in the
> article below?

Thanks for the link! The reason why set_args() was changed now was that
the example Yakov had provided (see
<>) didn't work.
The more important point he made was that the current "non-escaping"
behavior increases the set of possible arguments (while before certain
things didn't work because escaping interfered). But I'll have a look at
the link to see whether there are any counterarguments. :)


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