From: John Maddock (john_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-11-03 06:42:24
> Please don't take offense when I say this, but "for historical
> reasons" set off my alarm for sloppy code.
> I don't claim to know C++ or Boost better than others here so if there
> is a better valid reason please enlighten me. If there is no way to
> have a negative index (this is not an array, after all..), why give
> the option? Doing things the wrong way just because thats how they
> were done before isn't good.
The design changed: it was previously documented as taking a signed value,
with an index of -1 returning the equivalent of $` and -2 returning \'.
Access this way is now deprecated; with the introduction of members prefix()
and suffix() now providing that functionality.
Access the old way is still supported so that existing code will still work
(at least for now, eventually I'll make a breaking change and make the
> I almost didn't reply for fear of setting off an arrogant developer.
> Not saying you are one of them, but there are an unfortunate amount in
> the OSS community and I have stepped on enough toes to learn.
We try to succumb to reasoned argument around here, but we're all human all
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk