Re: [boost] Re: [string algo formal review]

From: Thomas Wenisch (twenisch_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-29 03:51:03

Hi,

On Wed, 29 Oct 2003, Pavol Droba wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 12:09:23AM -0000, Andy Little wrote:
> > 
> > "Ross MacGregor" <ross__macgregor_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> > news:bnmmlm$vsd$1_at_sea.gmane.org...
> > >
> > > Rob Stewart wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes agree with Rob on this one. I have been using 0 based indexes for a
> > > long long time, but when i see find_nth(), I expect 1 to be the first
> > > occurence.
> > >
> > > I think in this case naming guidlines should override convention or
> > > usage concerns. If you use a term like "nth" in the name, it should
> > > reflect its usage in the english language.
> > 
> > "offset" does it for me...  find_offset()   ...?
> 
> If just a name is confusing, I have no problem to rename it. However the problem
> would be to find the better name. I don't like find_offset. It does not 
> decsribe what it is suppose to do.
> 

How about find_occurrence().  It means the right thing, and doesn't
suggest 1 as the starting index as find_nth() does for some.  The big
disadvantage is that it is tough to spell (two c's and two r's).

Some other possibilities:

find_instance()
find_index()
find_repetition()

Regards,
-Tom Wenisch
Computer Architecture Lab
Carnegie Mellon University