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

From: Pavol Droba (droba_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-31 07:03:07

On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 03:20:32PM -0500, Rob Stewart wrote:
> From: "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]>

[snip]
 
> 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 all of my capitulation above rescinded!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.
> 

There has been a lot of arguments propesed in this matter, but I would
still prefer the current solution. The reasons are following:

Naming:

        - It is clear what does it mean n-th element (modulo indexing problem).
          So it is clear what does find_nth() do.
  
        - find_index() implies that we are searching for an index not an element of
          substring. 

        - find_occurence() is a very synonym of find(), it provides no information 
          about what occurence is actualy found

Indexing:

        - 0-based index is widely accepted and understood by C/C++ developers.
   - all C/C++ entities which use an indexing in some way use 0-based indexing

   - even if 1-based index can sound more natural, I thing that breaking heavily
     used convention is match worse.

        - if the parameter name is changed to "index" it is clear, what base should be used

Over and out.

Pavol