Re: [boost] [process] Formal Review starts today, 27 October

Subject: Re: [boost] [process] Formal Review starts today, 27 October
From: Klemens Morgenstern (klemens.morgenstern_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-10-31 18:13:05

Am 31.10.2016 um 23:02 schrieb Gavin Lambert:
> On 1/11/2016 03:27, Edward Diener wrote:
>> I found the notation for the std_out, std_err, and std_in to be exactly
>> the opposite of what I would expect. I would think std_out and std_err
>> would use a '<' notation and std_in would use a '>' notation. But using
>> the pipes was fairly straightforward. I found the naming in the tutorial
>> a bit strange, where a bp::opstream is called 'in' and a bp::ipstream is
>> called 'out'.
>
> bp::std_out > stdout
> bp::std_out > "output.txt"
> bp::std_in < "input.txt"
>
> These seem the right way around to me, and reminiscent of how they're 
> used in a shell; just with the extra keyword in front. Pretend the 
> keyword is the process name instead.
>
> Having said that, due to the presence of the keyword, perhaps 
> assignment would be a better syntax, similar to bp::args?  eg:
>
> bp::std_out = stdout
> bp::std_out = "output.txt"
> bp::std_in = "input.txt"
>
This is allowed syntax, as is bp::std_out(stdout). I personally like the 
< and > syntax very much, but for those who don't there are alternatives.