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

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] Subject: Formal Review of Proposed Boost.Process library starts tomorrow
From: Jeff Flinn (TriumphSprint2000_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-02-14 11:57:35

Steven Watanabe wrote:
> AMDG
> 
> On 2/11/2011 6:01 AM, Jeff Flinn wrote:
>> So having stdin, stdout, stderr Initializers with constructors or
>> factory functions:
>>
>> stdin_from()
>> stdin_from(const path&)
>> stdin_from(const file_descriptor_source&)
>> stdin_from(const file_descriptor_ray&)
>>
>> stdout_to()
>> stdout_to(const path&)
>> stdout_to(const file_descriptor_sink&)
>> stdout_to(const file_descriptor_ray&)
>>
>> stdout_to()
>> stderr_to(const path&)
>> stderr_to(const file_descriptor_sink&)
>> stderr_to(const file_descriptor_ray&)
>>
>> is to me conceptually much simpler than dealing with stream behaviour,
>> stream end and context classes. It also minimizes copying and heap
>> allocated handles.
>>
> 
> I have to say that I prefer the use of stream_id
> to having separate functions for each stream.

Is there a way to do that and keep the compile time check that err/out 
are being connected to a sink, and in is being connected to a source?

What is motivation for your preference?

Thanks, Jeff