On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 18:42:50 +1100, "Vladimir Batov" <batov@people.net.au> said:

...

... All in all my impression of the *current* situation with the proposal is that at *present* we have many useful and promising bits and pieces lying around. I see good ideas. I see good suggestions. I fail to see the product. It surely is a good start but to me we have not reached the destination yet. I'd be more comfortable after I see those bits and pieces taking shape. For me that shape primarily would be the interface and the documentation -- the initial pieces of the contract between the user and the implementor. Once both parties are happy with the contract, you'll beaver away providing the content/implementation.

Now that I looked at the code once again, I think I'd like to take back the "bits and pieces lying around" bit (as it feels plain wrong and I think I need better glasses to see things the first time around :-)).

Thanks.

In fact, I feel that all the pieces are more/less in place and I'll be very much in content if I see something along the following lines:

namespace boost {

class uuid { struct time_generator; struct random_generator; struct best_generator;

template<class Generator> uuid(Generator const&) {...} or template<class Generator> uuid(Generator const& =best_generator()) {...}

static uuid null() { ... }

typedef void (base::*bool_type)(); void internal_bool() {}; operator bool_type() const { return *this == null() ? 0 : &base::internal_bool; }

... };

struct uuid::time_generator { ... }; struct uuid::random_generator { ... }; struct uuid::best_generator { ... };

} // boost

I like the look of this.

Replacing is_null() with the implicit "bool" converter is not a syntactic sugar. It's very much idiomatic along the same lines as "a + b" is better than "a.add(b)".

I like the implicit "bool" converter too.

I'd probably look at deploying Boost.Range functionality as I see many constructors working with ranges.

With that caveat I think I am all willing to abandon my original (a very lonely BTW) position and run over to the happy 'yes' campers.

Thanks, Vladimir.

Thanks, Andy Tompkins