Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Uuid and header-only support
From: Peter Dimov (lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-11-06 14:34:26
James E. King, III wrote:
> I'm not certain that it is necessary to make random_generator a separate
> class like this.
If it's documented as an instance of basic_random_generator<>, making it
later not an instance would be a breaking change.
It's also possible to document it as
typedef /*unspecified*/ random_generator;
but then we need to specify its interface by basically repeating that same
class definition.