🚀 go-pugleaf

> ==========Marian Hellema, 11/13/95==========
> 
> 
> Thanks for your reply. Several people have suggested this "typo" in the
> draft, but I don't think your interpretation is correct. What
> you describe as
> the behavior of find_first_of()  fits exactly the description of
> search(),
> see 25.1.9 of the standard working paper.
> 
> My suspicion, which was confirmed by Samuel Danton, is that
the "typo" is
> in the phrase "... for any non-negative integer n...". I think
> this is meant
> to be:
> ".. for some non-negative integer n...".
> This interpretation is conform the memberfunction
> find_first_of() of class
> string,
> see 21.1.1.9.3 of the working paper.
> 
> Regards,
> Marian

It is likely that you are right.  That is the danger
in trying to figure out what typo was made by somone
else when the situation is complicated.  The
choice of member function names does tend
to lead people (well at least me) astray.  It
would be nice if there was a clearer distinction
between matching a sequence and matching
individual elements via the member function
name.  The problem with standards tends to
be that they are hard to read and names often
don't communicate very well.  If standards
could only be written to read well (like we
should write our code) in addition to being
"legalistically" correct.  Perhaps there needs
to be a plain text description of intent as
well as the more formal part.  I long for
the clarity I found in the ARM.

Good Day
Dick
Dick.Menninger@DaytonOH.ATTGIS.COM


[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  Submission address: std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu.
  Contact address: std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  The moderation policy
  is summarized in http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt/std-c++/policy.html. ]