[boost] Re: [string algo formal review]

From: Ross MacGregor (ross__macgregor_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-28 16:22:03

Rob Stewart wrote:

> From: David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]>
> 
>>I don't get it.  The first element of a sequence is s[0].  Why
>>shouldn't the first matching substring be find_nth(s, XX, 0)?
> 
> Because s[0] isn't the 0th element; it's the first.  As I said,
> we use ordinals to refer to things like this.  Addressing an
> element uses an index, and indexes start at zero.  "nth"
> explicitly refers to ordinals, and there's no 0th; you start with
> 1st, so find_nth() should reasonably start numbering from one.

Yes agree with Rob on this one. I have been using 0 based indexes for a 
long long time, but when i see find_nth(), I expect 1 to be the first 
occurence.

I think in this case naming guidlines should override convention or 
usage concerns. If you use a term like "nth" in the name, it should 
reflect its usage in the english language.

-- 
Ross MacGregor