On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 18:45:53 +0200, Klaim - Joël Lamotte <mjklaim@gmail.com> wrote:
[...] 2. I suspect that there are specific reasons why the 'child' class isn't designed in the same way than std::thread? I think it might have been discussed before but I don't remember. Is there a rational somewhere about this?
What exactly do you mean if you compare child with std::thread?
3. Why do I need to repeat the executable name if I provide the full command line? Can I just provide the command line?
Good point, that sounds like a nice improvement!
4. I see that some example use lambdas, so C++11 enabled. Why not use auto too then? I think some of the macro use (related to return types in particular) can be removed by using auto. Obviously that's true only if the example are meant to use C++11.
Can you give me an example what you are referring to? It's not a macro like WEXITSTATUS I guess (as they are POSIX-only)?
5. It is not clear to me what you mean by "resources" in the "Cleaning up resources" part? I just read this and I'm guessing that it's for solving the problem of zombie process? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIGCHLD
Yes, it's zombie processes on POSIX and process and thread handles on Windows. I referred to both of them as resources. Any other idea what to call them? Thanks for your quick feedback, :) Boris