Re: [boost] [UUID] PODness Revisited

Subject: Re: [boost] [UUID] PODness Revisited
From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-12-26 18:24:51

Vladimir Batov 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).

Yes, but as of today I think we still need to consider C++03 our target 
standard.  Nobody even has a C++0x compiler yet.

--
David Abrahams
Boostpro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com