From: joel de guzman (isis-tech_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-06-28 15:39:03
From: "Beman Dawes" <bdawes_at_[hidden]>
> >[David Abrahams]
> >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,
I prefer 0 based indexing, but not strongly.
The library is still a nice library with or without
Just my opinion....
-Joel de Guzman
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk