From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-26 13:44:17
"Jeff Garland" <jeff_at_[hidden]> writes:
> 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.
I'd hope the equivalence would be XXX_nth( s, 0 ) in any case.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk