the same -- 'm_uuid' initialized invalid -- but explicit about what it actually does.
I realize invalid vs nil/null was discussed earlier but I still don't like using those terms interchangeably.
I've been wondering where that "invalidity" property of nil/null comes from for me? For me it certainly started with K&R stating "The symbolic constant NULL is ... to indicate more clearly that this is a special value for a pointer." That is, it was not just another but special pointer to start with. Then, through many years, that "special" property has been firmly ingrained for me as "invalid" due to char* p1; char* p2 = NULL; char* p3 = "mama"; strlen(p1); // bombs strlen(p2); // bombs strlen(p3); // good For all practical purposes the above makes p1 and p2 quite naughty/bad/invalid compared to the well-behaving p3. Despite NULL's quite official status in the language(s), strlen() clearly "thinks" that NULL is anything but valid and bombs spectacularly. Then, I habitually extended that notion onto any foo::null() and ultimately to uuid::nil(). Anyone with more descriptive suggestions? Best, V.