From: j.adelman_at_[hidden]
Date: 2002-02-12 14:25:27
Quoting Karl Nelson <kenelson_at_[hidden]>:
> > > Second suggestion.
> > >
> > > Don't use "%1" this is too easily confused
with
> > other
> > > formats ie. Is this a printf format or
yours?
> > > I see %1s.
> > >
> > > Use [1] (boost suggestion) or {1} (.NET).
Also
> > this avoids
> > > the ending tag problem.
> >
> > That sounds reasonable; this was just my
default
> > choice because it had been used a lot, rather
> > than a thought-out decision. Alternatively,
I
> > could make this a parameter with a default,
but
> > this may add too much complexity. I could
also
> > add a means to specify the format as a
> > vector<int> & a seperation character, for if
> > there is a non-translation use. One thing
I'd
> > like opinions on is whether 0-based counting
is a
> > good thing, or should be replaced with 1-
based
> > counting.
>
> Most systems I know of are 1-based.
> - C printf
> - awk ($0 means whole string)
> - perl
> - shell
>
> I suspect python is 1-based. I can't find .NET
page right now.
>
> I am sure a number of others.
> Arrays start from zero because there is no
offset for
> the first element. That argument does not apply
to something
> like formatting arguments. History generally
seems to favor
> 1-based. However, if you are going to be
indexing those arguments
> to the user interface it would be compelling to
use 0-based.
>
> --Karl
I hadn't thought of allowing indexed access to
the stored strings. I didn't really expect the
user to see anything except the reorder object
which doesn't have any link to the underlying
buffer. What would such functionality be used
for?
James
-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through UK Online webmail