pid_t or Q_PID?

[Simon Hausmann]

On Thursday 14 June 2007 20:42:26 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 08:36:40PM +0200, Christian Ehrlicher wrote:
> > Ok, I think we should return at least bool so that the caller can
> > determine if the process was started or not
>
> when you check the logs (and read the code carefully :) you'll notice
> that originally a bool was returned and it was later changed into a pid.
> the immediate users might have vanished again, but i don't think it is a
> very clever idea to remove the functionality.

I still see the risk that if we continue to return a pid_t or a qint64 in a 
high-level API like KRun or KToolInvocation people are likely to write code 
that actually uses that handle with Posix APIs like wait(2). As a result it 
just means more work for Christian and other win32 porters. I don't think we 
should make it _that_ easy to write unportable code.

Simon
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20070614/7a628d40/attachment.sig>