Shrink UUID implementation

Currently UUID is

function uuid() {
  var u = '',
  m = 'xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx',
  i = 0,
  rb = Math.random() * 0xffffffff|0;

  while (i++<36) {
    var c = m [i-1],
    r = rb&0xf,
    v = c=='x' ? r : (r&0x3|0x8);

    u += (c=='-' || c=='4') ? c : v.toString(16);
    rb = i%8==0 ? Math.random() * 0xffffffff|0 : rb>>4
  }
  return u
}

Should we shrink to

function uuid(a) {
  return a
    ? (a ^ ((Math.random() * 16) >> (a / 4))).toString(16)
    : ([1e7] + -1e3 + -4e3 + -8e3 + -1e11).replace(/[018]/g, uuid);
}

Crypto version

function uuid() {
    return ([1e7] + -1e3 + -4e3 + -8e3 + -1e11).replace(/[018]/g, (c) => (c ^ (crypto.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(1))[0] & (15 >> (c / 4)))).toString(16));
}

Combined using crypto.getRandomValues with fallback

function uuid(a) {
  return a
    ? (a ^ ((crypto.getRandomValues ? crypto.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(1))[0] : Math.random() * 16) & (15 >> a / 4))).toString(16)
    : ([1e7] + -1e3 + -4e3 + -8e3 + -1e11).replace(/[018]/g, uuid);
}

Pros? Cons? ¯_(ツ)_/¯

No file or test is named. Start by locating the current UUID implementation and compare it with each proposed JavaScript variant, including the crypto fallback; done requires a maintainer decision on the implementation and validation that the chosen behavior remains compatible.