[boost] Re: [string algo formal review]

From: Andy Little (andy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-28 19:09:23

"Ross MacGregor" <ross__macgregor_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:bnmmlm$vsd$1_at_sea.gmane.org...
>
> 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.

"offset" does it for me...  find_offset()   ...?