From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-27 14:21:04
Rob Stewart <stewart_at_[hidden]> writes:
> From: Pavol Droba <droba_at_[hidden]>
>> On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 02:07:47AM +1100, Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
>> > "Pavol Droba" <droba_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>> > news:20031026141956.GD17011_at_lenin.felcer.sk...
>> > > Then you would also need a type which holds values in range 1..n. Arrays
>> > > and
>> > > containers are 0-indexed also because unsigned types are denoting exactly
>> > > this
>> > > domain. And actualy what conteptual difference between "first element" and
>> > > "first match of substring"?
>> > well, you almost said it The first element of an array is index 0. The first
>> > substring of a string
>> > is a index X. Also, array objects(chars). are not substrings unless we're
>> > talking about substrings of lenght 1.
>> > You also called your functions firnd_first, not find_0th, and we have
>> > find_first( s, XX ) == find_nth( s, XX, 0 )
>> > which doesn't seem natural. It's like having an integer variable and making
>> > zero mean you have got one
>> > of something.
> A substring is not a structural element of the container. A
> container is, by definition, composed of elements. A substring
> is a semantic notion temporarily associated with a portion of a
> container. Thus, the former should be denoted using the usual
> C/C++ indexing notation. The latter, OTOH, should be denoted
> using the vernacular: we use ordinals to refer to things like
> substrings. That means numbering from one for substrings.
>> What would then denote find_nth( s, XX, 0 )? Should it throw an exception?
I don't get it. The first element of a sequence is s. Why
shouldn't the first matching substring be find_nth(s, XX, 0)?
You can think of find_nth as indexing into a view onto the matching
substrings of s if you want.
I imagine most C++ programmers will have the same trouble
understanding why the first should be 1 in this case.
Finally, interfaces which allow values to be passed at compile-time
which are *always* illegal at runtime are a bad idea. That's
especially true for an unsigned zero, and especially in this case
which is clearly confusable.
-- 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