From: Pavol Droba (droba_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-31 07:03:07
On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 03:20:32PM -0500, Rob Stewart wrote:
> From: "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]>
[snip]
> Given my now enlightened understanding of nth_element, I don't
> consider it analogous to find_nth() at all, so you can consider
> all of my capitulation above rescinded!
>
> Choosing a different name will resolve the problem as previously
> stated.
>
There has been a lot of arguments propesed in this matter, but I would
still prefer the current solution. The reasons are following:
Naming:
- It is clear what does it mean n-th element (modulo indexing problem).
So it is clear what does find_nth() do.
- find_index() implies that we are searching for an index not an element of
substring.
- find_occurence() is a very synonym of find(), it provides no information
about what occurence is actualy found
Indexing:
- 0-based index is widely accepted and understood by C/C++ developers.
- all C/C++ entities which use an indexing in some way use 0-based indexing
- even if 1-based index can sound more natural, I thing that breaking heavily
used convention is match worse.
- if the parameter name is changed to "index" it is clear, what base should be used
Over and out.
Pavol