Re: [boost] [uuid] Interface

Subject: Re: [boost] [uuid] Interface
From: Vladimir Batov (batov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-12-19 21:55:32

It seems I did it again. :--( Just noticed that I misread the following excerpt of Scott's email. Apologies and corrections further below.

>> Take, for example, a map<string, uuid>.  No default constructor means
>> that you can't use operator[], 

First, my preference is to *have* the default constructor -- we disagree on its behavior as I'd like the default constructor to *be part* of the constructors family (constructing a valid object) and you insist on the default constructor being an exception. The latter is not how the language interprets the default constructor. Therefore, me not happy. IMHO that deviation of the meaning from the letter of the language is unacceptible. 

Second, even if I cannot use operator[], so what? std::fstream has no default constructor. std::list has no operator[], std::vector has no push_front(). That did not stop anyone from using those classes. What the lack of those "features" achieved instead is that it most likely saved a few people from shooting themselves in a foot. 

Best,
V.