On Tue, 01 Feb 2011 22:37:59 +0100, Claude Quézel <cquezel@gmail.com> wrote:
I noticed that the boost::process::child does not have a default constructor. If I have a coding requirements like the following example, I would be stuck:
// Note the required default constructor boost::process::child child;
If I remember correctly, originally the idea was that a child instance always represents a live child process. You would always need to use a factory function like create_child() to get a child instance. But then of course when a child process terminates a child instance does not automatically disappear. So it's a bit difficult to argue against a default constructor on that ground. :) Looking at the code I think it should be no problem either to add a default constructor (also to child's parent class process). If it helps and if there is no good reason against it I'll add a default constructor? Boris
[...]