Subject: Re: [boost] [uuid] Interface
From: Vladimir Batov (batov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-12-23 02:47:40
> But is it more correct to do this initialization than applying data_type's
> default initialization?
I do not feel the def. cnstr is in order here. Because what we say in the
code is -- we do not need an initialized instance (with the def. or any
other cnstr) but a place-holder only that we'll initialize ourselves via
> Just to be clear this does or doesn't seem like a reasonable use case to
IMHO it is certainly a reasonable use-case. That is, in fact, why I think it
should be saying what it is doing. In general terms, for some other class a
def. cnstr might be expensive or even unavailable. That should not be
stopping us from applying the use-case.
Just my view as always.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk