Re: [boost] [UUID] PODness Revisited

Subject: Re: [boost] [UUID] PODness Revisited
From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-12-24 16:43:16

on Wed Dec 24 2008, "Vladimir Batov" <batov-AT-people.net.au> wrote:

> Scott,
>
> IMHO you raise a mighty point very much worth looking into. At least I surely will be
> pouring through your references, dusting off and looking at those ol' PODs (which I
> admit long-time discarded) from an entirely different angle.
>
>> It's also trivial for someone to build a non-POD out of the pod should
>> they desire:
>
> I've been thinking along these lines also. For that reasons I am leaning to resigning
> to the nil-generating def. cnstr as it seems the majority view and seems to
> considerably simplify the implementation.

Unfortunately I think any nontrivial constructor at all makes a class a
non-POD.  So you may have to accept the uninitialized state in order to
interact well with MPI.  You might consider whether you need a low-level
representation class as well as a higher-level wrapper with stronger
invariants.

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