Re: [Boost-users] Issues with boost::process from the sandbox and the boost::process::child semantics

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] Issues with boost::process from the sandbox and the boost::process::child semantics
From: Jan Kundrát (jkt_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-03-28 11:59:21

On 03/28/11 02:33, Agustín Bergé wrote:
> You could always use Boost.Optional for that, which is stack based.

Thanks for your tip, I've switched to boost::optional.

Just a note, though -- based on my understanding of the rationale for
the boost::optional, my usage is rather strange here. I do not really
want to have an "optional" boost::process::child instance, I want to
have it all the time. I realize that from a purely technical point of
view, I do use the optionality, as it is left uninitialized for some
time in the constructor, but I consider that a technical hack.

In short, when there's a review for possible integration of this library
to main boost, I'd like the reviewers to note this limitation and the
fact that the semantics was *very* surprising for me as a programmer.

Cheers,
Jan

-- 
Trojita, a fast e-mail client -- http://trojita.flaska.net/