From: Ole Lennert (olennert_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-06-28 01:48:14
I enjoy reading the boost mailing list, trying to learn some new stuff
(I am too much of a novice to offer anything yet).
Usually there is a lot of traffic on the boost mailing list. However, I
haven't received anything since Sunday. Is there something wrong with my
Thanks for your great work with boost. It is a wonderful resource.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Beman Dawes [mailto:bdawes_at_[hidden]]
> Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2001 4:12 PM
> To: boost_at_[hidden]; boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] Re: Tuples Library Formal Review
> At 08:53 AM 6/23/2001, Kostya Altukhov wrote:
> >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
> >>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
> >(and why tuple of two variables should use different scheme than
> >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)?
> Very good point!
> So the rule actually seems something like:
> For by-value indexes such as selecting an element in a
> container, use 0
> as the base. Examples: std::vector or std::string.
> For by-name ordinals such as naming operands, arguments,
> or structure
> members, use 1 as the base. Examples: std::pair.first, std::bind1st.
> On that basis, bind( f, _1, _2 ) seems the correct choice.
> It might be
> worth mentioning the above rules in the rationale.
> Info: http://www.boost.org Unsubscribe:
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk