From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-11-01 15:01:08
Pavol Droba <droba_at_[hidden]> writes:
> 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.
I would really, really like to see a use case which isn't handled more
cleanly and just as easily with an iterator-based "find" algorithm.
I think it's important not to shove functionality into a library
before we can prove its usefulness. It's easy to add functionality
later but it's very hard to remove it once a library is out.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk