Re: [boost] [Review] UUID library (mini-)review starts today, November 23rd

Subject: Re: [boost] [Review] UUID library (mini-)review starts today, November 23rd
From: Vladimir Batov (batov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-12-03 02:42:50

> ...
> All in all my impression of the *current* situation with the proposal is 
> that at *present* we have many useful and promising bits and pieces lying 
> around. I see good ideas. I see good suggestions. I fail to see the 
> product. It surely is a good start but to me we have not reached the 
> destination yet. I'd be more comfortable after I see those bits and pieces 
> taking shape. For me that shape primarily would be the interface and the 
> documentation -- the initial pieces of the contract between the user and 
> the implementor. Once both parties are happy with the contract, you'll 
> beaver away providing the content/implementation.

Now that I looked at the code once again, I think I'd like to take back the "bits and pieces lying around" bit (as it feels plain wrong and I think I need better glasses to see things the first time around :-)). In fact, I feel that all the pieces are more/less in place and I'll be very much in content if I see something along the following lines:

namespace boost {

class uuid
{
    struct time_generator;
    struct random_generator;
    struct best_generator;
    
    template<class Generator>
    uuid(Generator const&) {...}
        or
    template<class Generator>
    uuid(Generator const& =best_generator()) {...}
    
    static uuid null() { ... }

    typedef void (base::*bool_type)();
    void internal_bool() {};
    operator bool_type() const { return *this == null() ? 0 : &base::internal_bool; }
    ...
};

struct uuid::time_generator { ... };
struct uuid::random_generator { ... };
struct uuid::best_generator { ... };

} // boost

Replacing is_null() with the implicit "bool" converter is not a syntactic sugar. It's very much idiomatic along the same lines as "a + b" is better than "a.add(b)".

I'd probably look at deploying Boost.Range functionality as I see many constructors working with ranges.

With that caveat I think I am all willing to abandon my original (a very lonely BTW) position and run over to the happy 'yes' campers.

Thanks,
Vladimir.