Re: [boost] [UUID] PODness Revisited

Subject: Re: [boost] [UUID] PODness Revisited
From: Scott McMurray (me22.ca+boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-12-26 12:19:51

On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 06:00, Vladimir Batov <batov_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> In fact, all that POD/non-POD "fight" seems to be a storm in a cup. The
> Standard (draft dated 2008-10-04) revised and refined definitions of POD.
> Now POD is a "trivial class/type" (section 9). I feel though that all the
> perks Adam and Scott have been mentioning are not restricted to the trivial
> types (PODs) but extend on to "trivially copyable types" as well which
> Andy's uuid seems to be the perfect example of.
>

Fair enough.

#ifndef BOOST_NO_CPP0X
    constexpr uuid() : data_() {}
#endif

That said, std::array in the draft is still an aggregate, not a
"trivial class/type", which makes me think there's still a reason to
use aggregates.

Would construction from an initializer list be sufficient to meet the
requirements for constant initialization in [basic.start.init]?