Open klemens-morgenstern opened 3 years ago
@JeffGarland I hope you don't me using the issues as my personal notebook for the ref implementation. That seems to be the easiest way to keep that visible for everyone.
@klemens-morgenstern No problem at all on issues -- it's very helpful. My recollection of process_group removal request was simply one of trying to simplify the proposal knowing that it could be added later. The standard can never do everything so you're always going to have 'boost' and other library additions in the eco system that build on std. And the thinking, at the time at least, was that getting the core of process was the most important near term effort so we should focus on that.
I implemented a process_group (which we removed from the proposal) on posix & windows with the following API for the reference implementaiton.
The implementation is rather easy, the only thing I have not done is the
async_wait
since this would require a new IO object for asio. I don't want to spend too much time on that, since this was just a PoC for me.TLDR:
process_group
is easy enough, but I do see why it does not need to be part of the core proposal.Note: The process.pdf does contain this class, p1750r1.pdf not.