From: Pavol Droba (droba_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-26 09:21:53
On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 12:30:02AM +1100, Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
> > ierase_nth_copy( s, "s", 1 );
> > this does not erase the 1st copy of "s", but the second. What's the
> > rationale for this? I don't find it intuitive.
> there is another thing which I forgot to mention.All the
> XXX_first functions seems not to be needed since I can just write
> XXX_nth( s, 1 ); This constitutes quite a few functions that can be removed
> from the interface. Does anybody else
> feels that this is the right to do?
This is an obvious duality, but searching for the first occurence is much more
common then searching for an nth occurence. Therefore I think, that it is reasonable
to have both.