Re: [boost] Re: Tuple library accepted

From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-06-28 11:49:02

I think the arguments for interoperability of zero-based indexing are
compelling. All the same, is there any reason we can't have both zero-based
indexing and '_1st', '_2nd', etc. as suggested below?

-Dave

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rainer Deyke" <root_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 12:04 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] Re: Tuple library accepted

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <jaakko.jarvi_at_[hidden]>
> To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
> Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 4:00 AM
> Subject: [boost] Re: Tuple library accepted
>
>
> > There was no conclusion (will there ever be?).
> > Currently indexing is 1-based, and there's an upcoming article about
> > tuples in CUJ, which describes them as 1-base indexed.
> > However, this doesn't prevent taking the other alternative,
> > if that is considered better.
> > So those who feel strongly about this issue, speak up now and we'll
> > change to 0-based. Otherwise, I'd suggest leaving it as it is.
>
> I strongly prefer 0-based, *or* names like '_1st', '_2nd', '_3rd'
(starting
> with '_1st', of course).  Anything else is inconsistent and likely to
> confuse.
>
>
> --
> Rainer Deyke (root_at_[hidden])
> Shareware computer games           -           http://rainerdeyke.com
> "In ihren Reihen zu stehen heisst unter Feinden zu kaempfen" - Abigor
>
>
>
> Info: http://www.boost.org  Unsubscribe:
<mailto:boost-unsubscribe_at_[hidden]>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>