On Tue, 21 Aug 2012 10:06:49 +0200, Roland Bock <rbock@eudoxos.de> wrote:
[...]b) Hmm. Not following. Why not use the null sink from boost::iostreams? You can create a stream from it that does what I would expect from redirecting to /dev/null: Discard all data.
Indeed it would be nice if you could write something like:
execute( run_exe("test.exe"), bind_stdout(boost::iostreams::null_sink()) );
Unfortunately null_sink doesn't open a file descriptor or HANDLE (it's just that its read and write functions are no-ops). And without a file descriptor or HANDLE there is nothing to inherit by the child process. That's why I had to open /dev/null or NUL myself in the example (and had to use #ifdefs ;). OK, got it. You need the handle... As you suggest below, I'd prefer a utility method to provide the file handle to /dev/null or NUL.[...]I am hoping for a way that lets 95% of the users write platform
independent code without the need for #ifdefs.
So far I'm already happy that for 95% of process related tasks I can write platform-independent code. I'm looking at this other 5% where I have to use #ifdefs as a mild but bearable annoyance. :) As written before: The library is pretty cool already in my eyes. I just
On 2012-08-25 17:27, Boris Schaeling wrote: think that a few more improvements with respect #ifdef reduction in the library users' code would make it a great library, fit for boost.
To move somewhat forward with Boost.Process: I (or others if they like - just send me an email) will create some utility classes and functions which are not truly mapping existing concepts on all platforms and put them into their own namespace (and probably header file). They would provide the convenience some people ask for. And they would also make it clear that they don't fit perfectly in with the rest of the library and can have quirks. IMHO, that sounds like a very reasonable plan to proceed. Personally I hope, that the utility stuff will eventually move into the main namespace, though.
Best regards, Roland
o I am not sure about the #ifdef in the code. Maybe somebody has a nice idea, otherwise I would just let leave it as it is.
I agree. Even an utility class wouldn't probably be easy to use.
Boris
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost