std.uuid is ready for review

[Timon Gehr]

On 02/11/2012 12:26 AM, Tobias Pankrath wrote:
> Jonathan M Davis wrote:
>
>> On Friday, February 10, 2012 16:36:48 Robert Jacques wrote:
>>> These functions are _constructors_; ideally, they should be expressed as
>>> such. In a managed language, we'd probably for with UUID("random",...).
>>> And if explicit template ctors were valid syntax, we'd used
>>> UUID!"random"(...) or UUID!Mt19937() or UUID!randomNumberBased or
>>> something. There's also the enum/aliases, i.e. UUID(UUID.random) or
>>> UUID(Enum!"random") or UUID(UUID.Version.randomNumberBased). And at least
>>> for random, overloading works decently well, i.e. UUID(mySeed) or
>>> UUID(Mt19937(unpredictableSeed)). My point, or lack thereof, was to
>>> brainstorm ways of expressing a large variety of construction routines
>>> _as_ actual constructors.
>>
>> A factory function is vastly better than any of those suggestions IMHO. I
>> see no problem with having randomUUID as a free function, and I really
>> think that it's best as-is.
>>
>> - Jonathan M Davis
> randomUuid it should be.

No.

Also see http://www.d-programming-language.org/phobos/std_utf.html