12 Feb
2011
12 Feb
'11
6:51 p.m.
On 02/11/2011 11:33 PM, Oliver Kowalke wrote:
[snip] I agree - boost.process should provide only the sync. wait (async. wait should be left). Maybe boost.process or another library can provide the async. wait facility and the community has more time to discuss it.
With only synchronous waiting, the library is fairly limited in utility. I would think that the sort of scripting tasks that synchronous waiting might be useful for would not likely be done in C++ to begin with.