Re: [boost] Re: [string algo formal review]

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-30 12:42:54

Rob Stewart wrote:
> From: Daniel Spangenberg
>> Rob Stewart schrieb:
>> 
>>> 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.
>>> 
>>>> You can think of find_nth as indexing into a view onto the matching
>>>> substrings of s if you want.
>> 
>> You you are right, but 0th is consistent to the naming of the std
>> algorithm nth_element.
> 
> I don't agree with std::nth_element() taking zero to mean first,
> but it's in the Standard.  That makes it a solid precedent.

Have you looked at the signature of std::nth_element? ;-)