From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-06-28 14:35:47
>I think the arguments for interoperability of zero-based indexing are
>compelling. All the same, is there any reason we can't have both
>indexing and '_1st', '_2nd', etc. as suggested below?
I also vote for 0-based indexing but 1-based naming (_1st, _2nd, _3rd,
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk