std.uuid is ready for review

[Jonathan M Davis]

On Friday, February 10, 2012 09:56:36 Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2012-02-10 06:48, Robert Jacques wrote:
> > On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 03:57:21 -0600, Johannes Pfau <nospam at example.com>
> > 
> > wrote:
> >> Thanks for your feedback! Comments below:
> >> Am Wed, 08 Feb 2012 23:40:14 -0600
> > 
> >> schrieb "Robert Jacques" <sandford at jhu.edu>:
> > [snip]
> > 
> >>> All the generators have the function name [name]UUID. Instead, make
> >>> these function static member functions inside UUID and remove the
> >>> UUID from the name. i.e. nilUUID -> UUID.nil randomUUID ->
> >>> UUID.random., etc. I'm not sure if you should also do this for
> >>> dnsNamespace, etc. (i.e. dnsNamespace -> UUID.dns) or not.
> >> 
> >> UUID.nil makes sense and looks better. I don't have an opinion about
> >> the other functions, but struct as namespace vs free functions
> >> has always led to debates here, so I'm not sure if I should change it.
> >> I need some more feedback here first. (Also imho randomUUID() looks
> >> better than UUID.random(), but maybe that's just me)
> > 
> > Hmm... I'd agree that randomUUID reads better than UUID.random. IMO well
> > named free-functions are generally better than fake namespaces via
> > structs. However, fake namespaces via structs a generally better than
> > fake namespaces via free-function naming convention (i.e.
> > [function][namespace] or [namespace][function]. That said, I think the
> > bigger problem is that all these functions are effectively constructors.
> > I'd suspect that overloading UUID(...) would be a clearer expression of
> > the concepts involved. As for syntax, maybe something like:
> > UUID(Flag!"random", ... ) to disambiguate when necessary.
> 
> UUID(Flag!"random", ... ) is just ugly. It's far better to use a static
> function with a descriptive name.

Agreed.

- Jonathan M Davis