Re: [boost] [uuid] Interface

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 
op>>.

> Just to be clear this does or doesn't seem like a reasonable use case to 
> you?

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.

Best,
V.