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: Boris Schaeling (boris_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-02-16 19:11:39

On Wed, 16 Feb 2011 15:57:06 +0100, Jeff Flinn  
<TriumphSprint2000_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> [...]An example of using the executor/initializer framework to support  
> platform dependent behavior came up when our Windows/Mac gui app needed  
> to run a third-party non-gui app that opens a curses based window for  
> user interaction. The windows os also opens a console window by default  
> which was confusing to our users. So we created a no_console initializer  
> that set the appropriate visibility flags on windows and does nothing on  
> Mac/POSIX. We placed the platform specific versions in separate files.  
> But for exposition you could have this single header:

Thanks, but I think you misunderstood me. What I've been trying to  
understand and why I asked my questions is whether you think we need  
POSIX- and Windows-classes and -functions which would require a library  
user to use conditional compilation. I thought that this is what you had  
proposed (eg. with a POSIX and Windows executor)? Or did I misunderstand?

I ask as a final decision whether we want library users to choose between  
a generic API, a Windows API and a POSIX API via conditional compilation  
could at least make future discussions easier. Even though I think that  
the majority wants one generic non-system-specific API in Boost.Process,  
outlining the reasons for or against it hopefully avoids going through all  
of this a few more times again in the future (especially as jumping around  
between these options would always require lots of changes in  
Boost.Process).

Boris

> [...]