Re: [boost] Boost.Uuid and header-only support

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Uuid and header-only support
From: Peter Dimov (lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-11-06 14:34:26

James E. King, III wrote:

> I'm not certain that it is necessary to make random_generator a separate 
> class like this.

If it's documented as an instance of basic_random_generator<>, making it 
later not an instance would be a breaking change.

It's also possible to document it as

    typedef /*unspecified*/ random_generator;

but then we need to specify its interface by basically repeating that same 
class definition.