View mode: basic / threaded / horizontal-split · Log in · Help
December 19, 2003
Re: possible doc bug?
Sean L. Palmer wrote:
> We had a huge debate about this a very long time ago and Walter won.  ;)
> 
> If anything, I like your suggestion about basing arrays on one less than the
> current spec.  You're suggesting both making slice syntax inclusive on both
> ends (which already lost) and to also make arrays 1-based, which is very
> unlikely to change since most of us (everybody with a C, C++, Pascal, Java,
> or C#, or assembly background) like 0-based arrays.  It's all in what you
> were exposed to first as to what seems intuitive.  It's not so terribly
> difficult to rewire that part of your brain.  You just have to try it for a
> while, and after a while you "just get it".  ;)
> 
> Sean

that walter he always wins aye ? ;)

actually i want to clarify that i definetly would *hate* to see arrays 1 based

note the following quote: "I have no problems with arrays being 0 indexed" this 
should have said "i have no problems with arrays being 0 based" would have been 
better way to state it...

In vb the collections are almost all 1 based [1 to count] and the arrays are 0 
based [0 to count - 1] by default (what i always used) but you could cause all 
arrays to be 1 based with a compiler flag... in fact they are the same as COM 
safearray's.

But all that aside, i would lobby hard against 1 based arrays, but the slice 
operator should follow the same philosophy of 0 based arrays in my opinion, But 
again that is easier to get used to [startindex .. endindex + 1] than a 1 based 
array would be *shudders*
December 19, 2003
Re: possible doc bug?
Thanks for your advice. It is nice, as any Christmas present should be... ;)
I expressed only one (very doubtful: "maybe" even for me...)
I'll by another brain...
Nevermind, me too used to index by zero, till starting to work seriously under
Matlab (engineering). Here index is one-based...

To short the debate, it was the most strightforward way to link the slicing with
the definition. But I don't want to be devil's advocate...

Anyway (i start my hollyday) I wold like to wish you (and to all other people on
the forum) Merry Christmas! and Happy New Year! A 2004-index based "Long live
the humankind!"

;)
No harm.





In article <brukho$nb5$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Sean L. Palmer says...
>
>We had a huge debate about this a very long time ago and Walter won.  ;)
>
>If anything, I like your suggestion about basing arrays on one less than the
>current spec.  You're suggesting both making slice syntax inclusive on both
>ends (which already lost) and to also make arrays 1-based, which is very
>unlikely to change since most of us (everybody with a C, C++, Pascal, Java,
>or C#, or assembly background) like 0-based arrays.  It's all in what you
>were exposed to first as to what seems intuitive.  It's not so terribly
>difficult to rewire that part of your brain.  You just have to try it for a
>while, and after a while you "just get it".  ;)
>
>Sean
>
>"Lewis" <dethbomb@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:bruevq$f9l$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> Felix wrote:
>>
>> > Maybe arrays should be inedexed starting with 1... I know it is not the
>C/C++
>> > way, neither one of mathematics (almost every array begins with a0) but
>is more
>> > intuitive.
>>
>> I have no problems with arrays being 0 indexed, its just the slice
>operator
>> doesnt follow the same philosophy. To grab the first two elements
>>   should be a[] = b[0 .. 1] or b[lbound .. ubound] but not a[] = b[0 .. 2]
>...
>> its unintuitive to me because the start index is 0 based but the ending
>index is
>> 0 + 1 based ( or something like that), But as was stated, it seems for
>> compatibility reasons an such it wouldnt be wise to be changed. (no global
>> religion for us! :) )
>
>
December 19, 2003
Re: possible doc bug?
Thanks for your advice. It is nice, as any Christmas present should be... ;)
I expressed only one (very doubtful: "maybe" even for me...)
I'll bUy another brain...
Nevermind, me too used to index by zero, till starting to work seriously under
Matlab (engineering). Here index is one-based...

To short the debate, it was the most strightforward way to link the slicing with
the definition. But I don't want to be devil's advocate...

Anyway (i start my hollyday) I wold like to wish you (and to all other people on
the forum) Merry Christmas! and Happy New Year! A 2004-index based "Long live
the humankind!"

;)
No harm.





In article <brukho$nb5$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Sean L. Palmer says...
>
>We had a huge debate about this a very long time ago and Walter won.  ;)
>
>If anything, I like your suggestion about basing arrays on one less than the
>current spec.  You're suggesting both making slice syntax inclusive on both
>ends (which already lost) and to also make arrays 1-based, which is very
>unlikely to change since most of us (everybody with a C, C++, Pascal, Java,
>or C#, or assembly background) like 0-based arrays.  It's all in what you
>were exposed to first as to what seems intuitive.  It's not so terribly
>difficult to rewire that part of your brain.  You just have to try it for a
>while, and after a while you "just get it".  ;)
>
>Sean
>
>"Lewis" <dethbomb@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:bruevq$f9l$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>> Felix wrote:
>>
>> > Maybe arrays should be inedexed starting with 1... I know it is not the
>C/C++
>> > way, neither one of mathematics (almost every array begins with a0) but
>is more
>> > intuitive.
>>
>> I have no problems with arrays being 0 indexed, its just the slice
>operator
>> doesnt follow the same philosophy. To grab the first two elements
>>   should be a[] = b[0 .. 1] or b[lbound .. ubound] but not a[] = b[0 .. 2]
>...
>> its unintuitive to me because the start index is 0 based but the ending
>index is
>> 0 + 1 based ( or something like that), But as was stated, it seems for
>> compatibility reasons an such it wouldnt be wise to be changed. (no global
>> religion for us! :) )
>
>
December 19, 2003
Re: possible doc bug?
"Felix" <Felix_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:bruqs5$10a8$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Anyway (i start my hollyday) I wold like to wish you (and to all other
people on
> the forum) Merry Christmas! and Happy New Year! A 2004-index based "Long
live
> the humankind!"

Yeah, I get two weeks off, with nothing to do!  Woohoo!  Maybe I'll get the
latest DMD and play around.

> ;)
> No harm.

No harm, no foul!  ;)

Sean
December 19, 2003
Re: possible doc bug?
> Anyway (i start my hollyday) I wold like to wish you (and to all other
people on
> the forum) Merry Christmas! and Happy New Year! A 2004-index based "Long
live
> the humankind!"

You too, and to all the other D-programmers.

I think 2004 will have some big things for D. :)

Cheers everyone



-- 
Matthew Wilson

STLSoft moderator (http://www.stlsoft.org)
Contributing editor, C/C++ Users Journal
(www.synesis.com.au/articles.html#columns)

"An Englishman by birth, a Yorkshireman by the grace of God" -- Michael
Gibbs

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
December 19, 2003
OT: happy holidays (was Re: possible doc bug?)
"Matthew" <matthew.hat@stlsoft.dot.org> wrote in message
news:brvs3h$2jsp$1@digitaldaemon.com...
| > Anyway (i start my hollyday) I wold like to wish you (and to all other
| people on
| > the forum) Merry Christmas! and Happy New Year! A 2004-index based "Long
| live
| > the humankind!"
|
| You too, and to all the other D-programmers.
|
| I think 2004 will have some big things for D. :)
|
| Cheers everyone
|
|
|
| --
| Matthew Wilson
|
| STLSoft moderator (http://www.stlsoft.org)
| Contributing editor, C/C++ Users Journal
| (www.synesis.com.au/articles.html#columns)
|
| "An Englishman by birth, a Yorkshireman by the grace of God" -- Michael
| Gibbs
|
| --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
| ---
|
|
|

I was planning to do it around the 23rd, 24th, but since you guys are doing
it now, me too.

Happy holidays to you all, let 2004 be a very good year for all of us, and
for D too ;).

-----------------------
Carlos Santander Bernal
Next ›   Last »
1 2
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home