"behaves and cost, exactly the same as any built in type" and the "default constructor [...] generates a valid random uuid" seem rather opposed. int() is not a random int, it's 0. No fundamental type -- no standard library type either, that I can think of -- has T() != T(), yet you want uuid() != uuid().
You are right, there is an apparent contradiction in my wording above. By "behaves and cost", I mean implementing comparison operators, inserters and extractors, for example. Where applicable, of course, and with minimum overhead. But an UUID is more than its bare 128-bit representation. IMHO, what justifies the truly exceptional uuid() != uuid() is the "unique" in "universally unique id". Yours, Kenneth
And why is the random UUID generator deemed more important than the time-based one, so much so that it gets the default constructor?
Because Andy has not [yet] implemented the time-based generator, which poses portability problems. _______________________________________________ Boost-users mailing list Boost-users@lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-Review--UUID-library-%28mini-%29review-starts-today%2... Sent from the Boost - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.