On Sat, 4 Sep 2004, Jonathan Lang wrote: > The only place where it makes > sense to wrap is when you define 0th as the final element, making it > logical that 0th+1 == 1st and 1st-1 == 0th.
I don't think 0th is a good name for the final element. I've never seen it used for that. I've only seen it used as a synonym for the element with index 0. (Which is usually also the 1st element.) No newbie is going to read "0th" and think "last". nth means last in at least some instances (e.g. summation from 1 to n). The primary meaning is "any element", but its still better than 0th. "last" would be better, but I don't want the homonym term problem with loops. It's also not quite symmetrical with 1st. nth or zth are better symmetry with 1st. BTW, there should be no ambiguity between C<postfix:'th> and C<''>, because one occurs where an operator is expected, and one occurs where a term is expected. last (=nth) and last (=break) are both terms unfortunately. ~ John Williams
