Re: [boost] [uuid] Interface

Subject: Re: [boost] [uuid] Interface
From: Scott McMurray (me22.ca+boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-12-23 18:04:08

On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 02:04, Vladimir Batov <batov_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> ... My argument was that some things have some features
> and some others don't. That is there (or not there) for a purpose. If we,
> say, banish foo::foo() then is for a reason. Consequently, the functionality
> dependent on that foo::foo() will not be available for that same reason --
>  'foo' should not be created with the def. cnstr. ...
>

Interestingly, I think that's the contrapositive of mine: If removing
the default constructor prevents something from being useful in
reasonable combinations with other classes, then removing the default
constructor is a bad idea.