Re: [boost] [uuid] Interface

Subject: Re: [boost] [uuid] Interface
From: Vladimir Batov (batov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-12-23 20:30:20

> 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.

Yes, your view has its merit... but I like mine better. :-) In fact, I do 
not believe anyone uses purely one approach or the other. My overwhelming 
working style is from inside out. That is, driven by the applicability of 
certain functionality to the particular class in question. Indeed, the 
introduction of that functionality is most often driven by some *external* 
need (as in your approach). However, the applicability for me is an 
overriding criterion.

V.