From: Greg Colvin (gcolvin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-06-23 10:32:13
From: Kostya Altukhov <kostya_at_[hidden]>
> Beman Dawes wrote:
> > >bind(f, _1, _2);
> > >one-based indexing is much more intuitive.
> >My memory of past discussions in the C++ committee was a strong preference
> >for consistent 0 based indexing even in the cases where it is less
> Why than std::pair has 'first' and 'second' instead of 'nullth' and 'first'
> (and why tuple of two variables should use different scheme than std::pair)?
> Why do we have std::bind1st and std::bind2nd instead of std::bind0th
> and std::bind1st (and I think when we use tuples for binding,
> the scheme should be consistent with standard binders)?
Because the first element of an array is at offset 0 from the base.
There is no nullth or zeroth element.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk