
Boost : 
From: Daniel Spangenberg (dsp_at_[hidden])
Date: 20031031 05:30:43
Rob Stewart schrieb:
> From: "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]>
> > Have you looked at the signature of std::nth_element? ;)
Yes I have, What is the problem?
> Actually, I searched to find it and then skimmed the description,
> assuming that Daniel had looked more closely. I didn't look at
> the signature until you questioned me.
>
> As it turns out, std::nth_element() operates strictly with
> iterators and returns void! Doh!
>
> Given my now enlightened understanding of nth_element, I don't
> consider it analogous to find_nth() at all, so you can consider
> all of my capitulation above rescinded!
>
> Choosing a different name will resolve the problem as previously
> stated.
Maybe a misunderstanding on my side. I did not want to say, that
the complete signature of nth_element is related to the find_nth
signature nor that we should adopt that signature. I only wanted to
show that nth_element actually means (n  1)th element for normal
speakers. Given the example from Austern's book
int array[] = {7, 2, 6, 11, 9, 3, 12, 10, 8, 4, 1, 5};
enum { arraylength = sizeof(array)/array[0] };
std::nth_element(array, array + 6, array + arraylength);
we finally have the array reordered such that:
 The element array[6] has the same value that it would have if the entire
array had been sorted
 The elements array[0] through array[5] are less than the elements in
the positions array[6] through array[11];
To my opinion this shows that the meaning of nth relates to a zero
based index (provided that the actual iterator is an array) and not
to the usual ordinals description.
Daniel
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk