From: Jeff Garland (jeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-26 09:56:58
On Mon, 27 Oct 2003 00:30:02 +1100, Thorsten Ottosen wrote
> > ierase_nth_copy( s, "s", 1 );
> >
> > this does not erase the 1st copy of "s", but the second. What's the
> > rationale for this? I don't find it intuitive.
>
> there is another thing which I forgot to mention.All the
> XXX_first functions seems not to be needed since I can just write
> XXX_nth( s, 1 ); This constitutes quite a few functions that can be removed
> from the interface. Does anybody else
> feels that this is the right to do?
I suppose this could go either way, but in my experience the xxx_first is the
most common variant and the code reads more cleanly spelled out instead of
having and extra parameter.
Jeff