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: 2008-12-06 15:57:45

On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 18:42:50 +1100, "Vladimir Batov"
<batov_at_[hidden]> said:
> > ... 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 :-)). 

Thanks.

> 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

I like the look of this.

> 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 like the implicit "bool" converter too.

> 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.
>

Thanks, Andy Tompkins