From: Rob Stewart (stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-29 10:22:10
From: "Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto_at_[hidden]>
> After giving it some thought, find_nth() seems alright as it is. The docs
> just need to state that the Nth starts from 0.
> It's been quite a big discussion about something quite small compared to the
> entire library.
It is a small thing, but it is an error-prone interface. Even if
a third of all users of find_nth() make mistakes because they are
always off by one due to the name, it's a problem. That goes for
those that think it should start with 1 as well as those that
think it should start with 0. One of the groups will make
mistakes regardless of the choice made.
A different name that avoids this point of confusion will resolve
the matter. (Written as if agreement on a new name will be a
trivial matter. ;-)
-- Rob Stewart stewart_at_[hidden] Software Engineer http://www.sig.com Susquehanna International Group, LLP using std::disclaimer;
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk