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

Subject: Re: [boost] [Review] UUID library (mini-)review starts today, November 23rd
From: Andy Tompkins (atompkins_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-11-25 22:39:02

On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 09:36:44 -0000, "Paul A. Bristow" <pbristow_at_hetp.u-
net.com> said:
> > -----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] [mailto:boost-
> > bounces_at_[hidden]]
> On
> > Behalf Of Andy Tompkins Sent: 25 November 2008 01:59 To: boost_dev
> > Subject: Re: [boost] [Review] UUID library (mini-)review starts
> > today,
> November 23rd
>
> > I'll fix this.  (How do others spell check html?)
>
> Well if you write in Quickbook, you can use your regular spell checker
> - I use Textpad for example. (It also produces hyperlinked pdfs - and
> should include automatic indexing soon).
>
> But of course it produces lots of false alarms :-(
>
> (But don't redo the docs just for this).

I'm hoping to have someone else convert the docs for me if the uuid
library is accepted.

> > > Is there a reason why create does not also take a std::string
> > > (with default length .size() as parameter?)    // Static functions
> > > static uuid create(uuid const& namespace_uuid, char const* name,
> > > int name_length);
> > >
> > > I assumed it would exist and was surprised when it didn't.
> > >
> > > (Should the name_length have a default value? C-string size - 1?)
> >
> > I don't have a preference.  The create function was done this way so
> > that it could take a block of memory and not just strings, but
> > thinking about it now, void* would be better for this.  It does not
> > sound like this is useful and I should just have the function take a
> > std::basic_string.  I've also considered changing this to a function
> > object similar to basic_uuid_generator instead of a static function.
> > What do people want?
>
> Are these mutually exclusive?  I don't have a strong view - I'm just
> reported what I assumed. (But then assumption is the mother of all
> foul-ups ;-)

No, they are not mutually exclusive.  To me, having both functions is a
stronger reason to change the interface from static functions to a
function object.

>
> > > I also believe that a really basic example would be useful.  This
> > > helps novices.
>
> > With your permission, I'll include your example.
>
> Of course - see licence ;-)

Thanks!

> You should (be able to) remove the #defines if you sort out the
> details below.
>
> And other usages would be useful - For example, creating unique
> filenames... Examples are often more useful than manuals.

Good idea.  I will put this example in and others as they come up.

> > I will suppress these warnings as in your example.
> Good.
>
> Paul
>
>
> ---
> Paul A. Bristow Prizet Farmhouse Kendal, UK   LA8 8AB [phone],
> mobile [phone] pbristow_at_[hidden]
>

Thanks,
  Andy Tompkins