From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-26 09:56:58
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 00:30:02 +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?
I suppose this could go either way, but in my experience the xxx_first is the
most common variant and the code reads more cleanly spelled out instead of
having and extra parameter.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk