Here we use a convention of naming 0 based accessors with atOffset: and atOffset:put:. If applicable, this could be a good tradeoff. Of course, the arguments are simple integers, but the 0 index gets explicit by the selector.
Cheers, Javier. On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Sean P. DeNigris <[email protected]>wrote: > > feldti wrote > > > > 0-based - because it's oriented towards C structures (and therefore > > memory oriented). > > ... > > it's not an index, its an byte-offset from > > the beginning of the memory. > > I defer to those who have experience working in the C domain (not me for a > long time, thank goodness). And, please if we decide to use 1-based, call > it > something other than index, which already has a meaning in our domain. > Offset sounds good. > > - S > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://forum.world.st/NativeBoost-Question-zero-based-or-one-based-indexes-tp4645911p4645943.html > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > -- Lic. Javier Pimás Ciudad de Buenos Aires
