Re: [boost] [uuid] Interface

Subject: Re: [boost] [uuid] Interface
From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-12-21 03:06:27

on Sat Dec 20 2008, "Vladimir Batov" <batov-AT-people.net.au> wrote:

> I searched high and low and I was not able to find any hints about
> equivalency of the default-constructed objects (required, expected,
> assumed or otherwise). And I am still under impression that that
> requirement (or expectation) cannot be real as many classes are not
> even meant to be comparable. 

I believe the general consensus about that is changing, at least
somewhat.

> I do not think it makes them unusable
> with the std containers or breaking anything or second-class classes
> of no interest to the Standards committee.

You might Google for 'stepanov "regular types"'

-- 
Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com