From: Pavol Droba (droba_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-11-01 03:16:52
On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 03:39:26PM -0500, Rob Stewart wrote:
> > Over and out.
> Too bad. You're convinced you're right and it's your library, so
> do what you want. That doesn't fix the problem, however.
There are other people, who thinks that 0-based index here is right.
I don't think that it is possible to satisfy everyone. 1-based index
bring more confusion then benefits in my point of view.
It adds an undefined value of 0, it is counterintuitive from the perspective
of common C convention. Proposals on the naming change were not better,
than the current one (given the fact that they solved the index problem,
but usualy brings other form of confusion).
Until now, the only acceptable suggestion, that was consistent, was to
remove *_nt variants in favor to find_iterator (currently under development).
Although it would be less powerful, but it is quite possible, that the
usability of *_nth algorithms is limited anyway.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk