Re: [Boost-users] Brainstorming [WAS: Subject: Formal Review of Proposed Boost.Process library starts tomorrow]

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] Brainstorming [WAS: Subject: Formal Review of Proposed Boost.Process library starts tomorrow]
From: Ilya Sokolov (ilyasokol_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-02-14 01:28:40

On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 18:29:04 +0500, Nat Goodspeed wrote:
> On Feb 11, 2011, at 12:54 AM, "Ilya Sokolov" wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 06:01:56 +0500, Boris Schaeling wrote:
> [snip]
>
>>> in my opinion the very different system interfaces are the main  
>>> reason. If Boost.Process has platform-independent code only,  
>>> developers will complain about the lack of flexibility.
>>>
>>
>> Such library would be practically useless, so it's no-go.
>
> Maybe I'm misreading what you said, but a library permitting a large  
> suite of use cases that are meaningful cross-platform is just what I  
> need. Again, I offer Python's subprocess module as proof by example that  
> this is achievable.

subprocess.py is not a library that 'has platform-independent code only'.
Look at preexec_fn, close_fds, startupinfo and creationflags parameters.

> [snip]