Russ P. russ.paie...@gmail.com wrote:
However, I've switched from Python to
Scala, so I really don't care.
Really? Your endless whining in this thread would seem to indicate
otherwise.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Aug 23, 7:46 pm, alex23 wuwe...@gmail.com wrote:
Russ P. russ.paie...@gmail.com wrote:
However, I've switched from Python to
Scala, so I really don't care.
Really? Your endless whining in this thread would seem to indicate
otherwise.
Yes, I guess I care some, but not much. I still use
On Aug 21, 1:33 am, Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-this-
cybersource.com.au wrote:
On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 11:01:42 -0700, Russ P. wrote:
Most programmers probably never use vectors and matrices, so they don't
care about the inconsistency with standard mathematical notation.
Perhaps you should
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 12:23 AM, Russ P. russ.paie...@gmail.com wrote:
On Aug 21, 1:33 am, Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-this-
cybersource.com.au wrote:
On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 11:01:42 -0700, Russ P. wrote:
Most programmers probably never use vectors and matrices, so they don't
care about the
On 2010-08-21, Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-this-cybersource.com.au wrote:
There is room in the world for programming languages aimed at
non- programmers (although HC is an extreme case), but not all
languages should prefer the intuition of non-programmers over
other values.
Extremer: Inform
On Aug 22, 12:47 am, Chris Rebert c...@rebertia.com wrote:
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 12:23 AM, Russ P. russ.paie...@gmail.com wrote:
On Aug 21, 1:33 am, Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-this-
cybersource.com.au wrote:
On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 11:01:42 -0700, Russ P. wrote:
Most programmers probably
On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 11:01:42 -0700, Russ P. wrote:
Most programmers probably never use vectors and matrices, so they don't
care about the inconsistency with standard mathematical notation.
Perhaps you should ask the numpy programmers what they think about that.
Vectors and matrices are just
On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 09:21:25 +0200, Kai Borgolte wrote:
Sorry about my previous posting with wrong references, this one should
be better.
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
A simple example: Using zero-based indexing, suppose you want to indent
the string spam so it starts at column 4. How many spaces
Russ P. wrote:
A simple example: Using zero-based indexing, suppose you want to indent
the string spam so it starts at column 4. How many spaces to you
prepend?
No, you won't want to indent a string so it starts at column 4. You
simply want to indent the string by four spaces. Like in PEP 8:
Sorry about my previous posting with wrong references, this one should
be better.
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
A simple example: Using zero-based indexing, suppose you want to indent
the string spam so it starts at column 4. How many spaces to you
prepend?
No, you won't want to indent a string so
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 07:13:50PM +, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
Mathematics is an ancient art that values tradition and convention. It
doesn't matter how hard it was to come up with a proof, or how difficult
to verify it. Mathematicians value logical correctness and some
undefinable sense
On Aug 20, 1:23 am, Martin Braun martin.br...@kit.edu wrote:
I find this thread extremely interesting, but what surprised me that
everyone seems to agree that mathematics is 1-based, but we Pythoneers
should stick to zero-based. I disagree. To make sure I'm not going
crazy, I took the top
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Russ P. russ.paie...@gmail.com wrote:
On Aug 20, 1:23 am, Martin Braun martin.br...@kit.edu wrote:
I find this thread extremely interesting, but what surprised me that
everyone seems to agree that mathematics is 1-based, but we Pythoneers
should stick to
On Aug 20, 11:19 am, geremy condra debat...@gmail.com wrote:
Not sure what you read, but for me (mostly number theory, numerical
analysis, and abstract algebra) zero-based indexing is quite common.
My background is in aerospace control engineering. I am certainly not
familiar with the
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 12:31 PM, Russ P. russ.paie...@gmail.com wrote:
On Aug 20, 11:19 am, geremy condra debat...@gmail.com wrote:
Not sure what you read, but for me (mostly number theory, numerical
analysis, and abstract algebra) zero-based indexing is quite common.
My background is in
Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
That is not some kind of ordinal numbering of the terms, that is the power
of the variable involved.
It's both. Convention is to make the power and the index
of the coefficent the same, because it would be pointlessly
confusing to do anything else.
--
Greg
--
Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 12:33:51 +1200, Gregory Ewing wrote:
Ian Kelly wrote:
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Martin Gregorie
mar...@address-in-sig.invalid wrote:
real sample[-500:750];
Ugh, no. The ability to change the minimum index is evil.
Not always;
Robert Kern wrote:
On 8/16/10 9:29 PM, Roy Smith wrote:
In articlei4cqg0$ol...@lust.ihug.co.nz,
Lawrence D'Oliveirol...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand wrote:
In messageroy-ee1b7f.21001716082...@news.panix.com, Roy Smith wrote:
5) real intensity[160.0 : 30.0 : 0.01]
How many elements in
J.B. Brown wrote:
Then users of my class (mainly my research lab coworkers) could
specify whichever behavior they wanted.
In terms of providing readable code and removing beginning programmer
confusion,
But having some arrays indexed from 0 and others from 1 can
be a recipe for confusion in
Martin Braun wrote:
Another thing worth mentioning (I guess here is a good a place as any
other) is the fact that programming and mathematics are still pretty
different things, despite how much we programmers would like to think
ourselves as some kind of mathematician.
Although when it
Russ P. wrote:
It all boils down to personal preference, but I just find it strange
that we would not try to make programming as consistent as possible
with notational conventions in the literature.
It doesn't matter how much mathematical convention you quote,
your assertion that 1-based
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 21:55:30 -0700, Russ P. wrote:
On Aug 18, 7:58 pm, Steven D'Aprano steve-REMOVE-
t...@cybersource.com.au wrote:
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 14:47:08 -0700, Russ P. wrote:
Is the top team in the league the number 1 team -- or the number 0
team? I have yet to hear anyone call the
On 2010-08-19, Russ P. russ.paie...@gmail.com wrote:
And I'd still like to know if the 1st element of aList is aList[0]
or aList[1].
aList[0]
--
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwardsYow! I'm definitely not
at in Omaha!
2010/8/9 MRAB pyt...@mrabarnett.plus.com:
Default User wrote:
Not to prolong a good food fight, but IIRC, many years ago in QBasic,
one could choose
OPTION BASE 0
or
OPTION BASE 1
When I wrote my own C++ 2-D matrix class, I wrote a member function
which did exactly this - allow you to
On 2010-08-19, J.B. Brown jbbr...@sunflower.kuicr.kyoto-u.ac.jp wrote:
When I wrote my own C++ 2-D matrix class, I wrote a member
function which did exactly this - allow you to specify the
initial index value. Then users of my class (mainly my research
lab coworkers) could specify whichever
On Aug 19, 9:07 am, J.B. Brown jbbr...@sunflower.kuicr.kyoto-
u.ac.jp wrote:
2010/8/9 MRAB pyt...@mrabarnett.plus.com:
Default User wrote:
Not to prolong a good food fight, but IIRC, many years ago in QBasic,
one could choose
OPTION BASE 0
or
OPTION BASE 1
When I wrote my own
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 19:15:54 -0700, Russ P. wrote:
The convention of starting with zero may have had some slight
performance advantage in the early days of computing, but the huge
potential for error that it introduced made it a poor choice in the long
run, at least for high-level languages.
On Aug 19, 11:04 am, Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-this-
cybersource.com.au wrote:
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 19:15:54 -0700, Russ P. wrote:
The convention of starting with zero may have had some slight
performance advantage in the early days of computing, but the huge
potential for error that it
I just checked, and Mathematica uses one-based indexing. Apparently
they want their notation to look mathematical.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 11:03:53 -0700, Russ P. wrote:
For those who insist that zero-based indexing is a good idea, why you
suppose mathematical vector/matrix notation has never used that
convention? I have studied and used linear algebra extensively, and I
have yet to see a single case of
On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 11:39:05 -0700, Russ P. wrote:
I just checked, and Mathematica uses one-based indexing. Apparently they
want their notation to look mathematical.
Well duh. It's called MATHematica, not PROGematica.
--
Steven
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Aug 19, 11:42 am, Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-this-
cybersource.com.au wrote:
On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 11:03:53 -0700, Russ P. wrote:
For those who insist that zero-based indexing is a good idea, why you
suppose mathematical vector/matrix notation has never used that
convention? I have
On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 11:27:18 -0700, Russ P. wrote:
[...]
Zero-based counting doesn't entirely eliminate off-by-one errors, but
the combination of that plus half-open on the right intervals reduces
them as much as possible.
The intuitive one-based closed interval notation used in many natural
Yes, apparently Basic uses one-based indexing too.
As for Ada, apparently, the programmer needs to explicitly define the
index range for every array. Weird. But I get the impression that one-
based indexing is used much more than zero-based indexing.
--
On 08/19/2010 02:04 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 19:15:54 -0700, Russ P. wrote:
The convention of starting with zero may have had some slight
performance advantage in the early days of computing, but the huge
potential for error that it introduced made it a poor choice in the
On Aug 19, 12:13 pm, Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-
While businesses are conservative in which languages they choose,
language designers are not conservative in the design features they come
up with. That there has been a gradual (although as yet incomplete)
convergence towards zero-based
On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 11:57:53 -0700, Russ P. wrote:
I don't
know where zero-based indexing started, but I know that C used it very
early, probably for some minuscule performance advantage.
In C, zero based indexing was used because it made pointer arithmetic
elegant and reduced bugs.
When
Russ P. wrote:
On Aug 19, 11:42 am, Steven D'Aprano st...@remove-this-
cybersource.com.au wrote:
On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 11:03:53 -0700, Russ P. wrote:
For those who insist that zero-based indexing is a good idea, why you
suppose mathematical vector/matrix notation has never used that
convention?
Russ P. wrote:
Yes, apparently Basic uses one-based indexing too.
For arrays, yes and no. Traditionally, DIM A(10) has 11 elements,
starting at 0, although it might depend on the version of Basic.
For strings, yes.
As for Ada, apparently, the programmer needs to explicitly define the
index
On Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Steven D'Aprano
st...@remove-this-cybersource.com.au wrote:
On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 11:57:53 -0700, Russ P. wrote:
I don't
know where zero-based indexing started, but I know that C used it very
early, probably for some minuscule performance advantage.
In C,
On 08/17/2010 10:15 PM, Russ P. wrote:
On Aug 7, 5:54 am, D'Arcy J.M. Cainda...@druid.net wrote:
Would said beginner also be surprised that a newborn baby is zero years
old or would it be more natural to call them a one year old? Zero
based counting is perfectly natural.
You're confusing
On 08/17/2010 10:15 PM, Russ P. wrote:
On Aug 7, 5:54 am, D'Arcy J.M. Cainda...@druid.net wrote:
Would said beginner also be surprised that a newborn baby is zero years
old or would it be more natural to call them a one year old? Zero
based counting is perfectly natural.
You're confusing
On Aug 18, 2:01 pm, AK andrei@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/17/2010 10:15 PM, Russ P. wrote:
On Aug 7, 5:54 am, D'Arcy J.M. Cainda...@druid.net wrote:
Would said beginner also be surprised that a newborn baby is zero years
old or would it be more natural to call them a one year old? Zero
On 18/08/2010 22:47, Russ P. wrote:
On Aug 18, 2:01 pm, AKandrei@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/17/2010 10:15 PM, Russ P. wrote:
On Aug 7, 5:54 am, D'Arcy J.M. Cainda...@druid.netwrote:
Would said beginner also be surprised that a newborn baby is zero years
old or would it be more
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 16:56:22 -0400, AK wrote:
Contrast this with _one_ example that was repeated in this thread of
there being ground floor, 1st floor, 2nd, and so on. However! Consider
that ground floor is kind of different from the other floors. It's the
floor that's not built up over
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 14:47:08 -0700, Russ P. wrote:
Is the top team in the league the number 1 team -- or the number 0 team?
I have yet to hear anyone call the best team the number 0 team!
Why is the top team the one with the lowest number?
Unfortunately, we're stuck with this goofy
On Aug 18, 7:58 pm, Steven D'Aprano steve-REMOVE-
t...@cybersource.com.au wrote:
On Wed, 18 Aug 2010 14:47:08 -0700, Russ P. wrote:
Is the top team in the league the number 1 team -- or the number 0 team?
I have yet to hear anyone call the best team the number 0 team!
Why is the top team
On 08/16/10 21:54, David Cournapeau wrote:
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Gregory Ewing
greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz wrote:
On Aug 7, 2010, at 9:14 PM, John Nagle wrote:
The languages which have real multidimensional arrays, rather
than arrays of arrays, tend to use 1-based subscripts.
On 8/16/10 11:10 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 22:56:20 -0500, Robert Kern wrote:
On 8/16/10 9:29 PM, Roy Smith wrote:
In articlei4cqg0$ol...@lust.ihug.co.nz,
Lawrence D'Oliveirol...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand wrote:
In
On Tue, 17 Aug 2010 10:22:27 -0500, Robert Kern wrote:
On 8/16/10 11:10 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 22:56:20 -0500, Robert Kern wrote:
On 8/16/10 9:29 PM, Roy Smith wrote:
In articlei4cqg0$ol...@lust.ihug.co.nz,
Lawrence D'Oliveirol...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand
In article i4ehad$k6...@localhost.localdomain,
Martin Gregorie mar...@address-in-sig.invalid wrote:
Roy wasn't using numpy/Python semantics but made-up semantics (following
Martin Gregorie's made-up semantics to which he was replying) which
treat the step size as a true size, not a size
In article 4c6a8cf...@dnews.tpgi.com.au,
Lie Ryan lie.1...@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/16/10 21:54, David Cournapeau wrote:
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Gregory Ewing
greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz wrote:
On Aug 7, 2010, at 9:14 PM, John Nagle wrote:
The languages which have real
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 7:59 AM, Lie Ryan lie.1...@gmail.com wrote:
On 08/16/10 21:54, David Cournapeau wrote:
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Gregory Ewing
greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz wrote:
On Aug 7, 2010, at 9:14 PM, John Nagle wrote:
The languages which have real multidimensional
On Aug 7, 5:54 am, D'Arcy J.M. Cain da...@druid.net wrote:
Would said beginner also be surprised that a newborn baby is zero years
old or would it be more natural to call them a one year old? Zero
based counting is perfectly natural.
You're confusing continuous and discrete variables. Time
in 639663 20100815 120123 Lawrence D'Oliveiro
l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand wrote:
In message mailman.2084.1281741048.1673.python-l...@python.org, Ian Kelly
wrote:
The ability to change the minimum index is evil.
Pascal allowed you to do that. And nobody ever characterized Pascal as
On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 16:28:46 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
In message 8crg0effb...@mid.individual.net, Gregory Ewing wrote:
For example, the constant term of a polynomial is usually called term
0, not term 1.
That is not some kind of ordinal numbering of the terms, that is the
power
On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 12:33:51 +1200, Gregory Ewing wrote:
Ian Kelly wrote:
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Martin Gregorie
mar...@address-in-sig.invalid wrote:
real sample[-500:750];
Ugh, no. The ability to change the minimum index is evil.
Not always; it can have its uses,
On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Gregory Ewing
greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz wrote:
On Aug 7, 2010, at 9:14 PM, John Nagle wrote:
The languages which have real multidimensional arrays, rather
than arrays of arrays, tend to use 1-based subscripts. That
reflects standard practice in
On 2010-08-15, John Nagle na...@animats.com wrote:
In retrospect, C's pointer=array concept was a terrible
mistake.
C arrays are not pointers.
--
Neil Cerutti
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
In article i4b770$hv...@localhost.localdomain,
Martin Gregorie mar...@address-in-sig.invalid wrote:
Say you have intensity data captured from an X-ray goniometer from 160
degrees to 30 degrees at 0.01 degree resolution. Which is most evil of
the following?
1) real intensity[16000:3000]
In message roy-ee1b7f.21001716082...@news.panix.com, Roy Smith wrote:
5) real intensity[160.0 : 30.0 : 0.01]
How many elements in that array?
a) 2999
b) 3000
c) neither of the above
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
In article i4cqg0$ol...@lust.ihug.co.nz,
Lawrence D'Oliveiro l...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand wrote:
In message roy-ee1b7f.21001716082...@news.panix.com, Roy Smith wrote:
5) real intensity[160.0 : 30.0 : 0.01]
How many elements in that array?
a) 2999
b) 3000
c) neither of the above
On 8/16/10 9:29 PM, Roy Smith wrote:
In articlei4cqg0$ol...@lust.ihug.co.nz,
Lawrence D'Oliveirol...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand wrote:
In messageroy-ee1b7f.21001716082...@news.panix.com, Roy Smith wrote:
5) real intensity[160.0 : 30.0 : 0.01]
How many elements in that array?
a) 2999
On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 22:56:20 -0500, Robert Kern wrote:
On 8/16/10 9:29 PM, Roy Smith wrote:
In articlei4cqg0$ol...@lust.ihug.co.nz,
Lawrence D'Oliveirol...@geek-central.gen.new_zealand wrote:
In messageroy-ee1b7f.21001716082...@news.panix.com, Roy Smith wrote:
5) real intensity[160.0 :
In message 4c5db0ae$0$1641$742ec...@news.sonic.net, John Nagle wrote:
The languages which have real multidimensional arrays, rather
than arrays of arrays, tend to use 1-based subscripts. That
reflects standard practice in mathematics.
Actually I’d go one better, and say that the
In message mailman.2071.1281719688.1673.python-l...@python.org, Thomas
Jollans wrote:
Where it all started is that 0-based indexing gives languages like C a
very nice property: a[i] and *(a+i) are equivalent in C. From a language
design viewpoint, I think that's quite a strong argument.
It
In message mailman.2084.1281741048.1673.python-l...@python.org, Ian Kelly
wrote:
The ability to change the minimum index is evil.
Pascal allowed you to do that. And nobody ever characterized Pascal as
“evil”. Not for that reason, anyway...
--
On Aug 15, 2010, at 1:00 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
It would be if pointers and arrays were the same thing in C. Only
they’re
not, quite. Which somewhat defeats the point of trying to make them
look the
same, don’t you think?
How are they not the same?
The code snippet (in C/C++)
On Aug 7, 2010, at 9:14 PM, John Nagle wrote:
FORTRAN, MATLAB, and Octave all use 1-based subscripts.
The languages which have real multidimensional arrays, rather
than arrays of arrays, tend to use 1-based subscripts. That
reflects standard practice in mathematics.
True, but that
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 4:55 AM, Roald de Vries downa...@gmail.com wrote:
On Aug 15, 2010, at 1:00 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
It would be if pointers and arrays were the same thing in C. Only they’re
not, quite. Which somewhat defeats the point of trying to make them look
the
same, don’t
On Aug 15, 2010, at 2:16 PM, geremy condra wrote:
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 4:55 AM, Roald de Vries downa...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Aug 15, 2010, at 1:00 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
It would be if pointers and arrays were the same thing in C. Only
they’re
not, quite. Which somewhat defeats
Roald de Vries wrote:
div class=moz-text-flowed style=font-family: -moz-fixedOn Aug
15, 2010, at 2:16 PM, geremy condra wrote:
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 4:55 AM, Roald de Vries downa...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Aug 15, 2010, at 1:00 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
It would be if pointers and arrays
On 8/15/2010 4:00 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
In messagemailman.2071.1281719688.1673.python-l...@python.org, Thomas
Jollans wrote:
Where it all started is that 0-based indexing gives languages like C a
very nice property: a[i] and *(a+i) are equivalent in C. From a language
design
Ian Kelly wrote:
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Martin Gregorie
mar...@address-in-sig.invalid wrote:
real sample[-500:750];
Ugh, no. The ability to change the minimum index is evil.
Not always; it can have its uses, particularly when you're
using the array as a mapping rather
Roald de Vries wrote:
On Aug 15, 2010, at 1:00 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
Which somewhat defeats the point of trying to make them
look the
same, don’t you think?
How are they not the same?
One way to see that they're not *exactly* the same is
the fact that
sizeof(python rocks)
is
On Aug 7, 2010, at 9:14 PM, John Nagle wrote:
The languages which have real multidimensional arrays, rather
than arrays of arrays, tend to use 1-based subscripts. That
reflects standard practice in mathematics.
Not always -- mathematicians use whatever starting index is
most convenient for
In article 8crg0effb...@mid.individual.net,
Gregory Ewing greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz wrote:
Not always -- mathematicians use whatever starting index is
most convenient for the problem at hand.
Which may be 0, 1, or something else. There are plenty of situations,
for example, where you
In message 8crg0effb...@mid.individual.net, Gregory Ewing wrote:
For example, the constant term of a polynomial is usually called term 0,
not term 1.
That is not some kind of ordinal numbering of the terms, that is the power
of the variable involved.
And polynomials can have negative powers,
... However, the killer reason is: it's what everybody
else does.
If this were really true, lists would be 1-based. I go back to
WATFOR; and Fortran (and I believe Cobol and PL/I, though I'm not
positive about them) were 1-based. (Now that I think about it, PL/I,
knowing IBM, could probably
On 2010-08-13 17:27, Den wrote:
There may be loads of reasons for it, but don't throw common sense
around as one of them.
It's a good thing then that I didn't:
... However, the killer reason is: it's what everybody
else does.
Where it all started is that 0-based indexing gives
On 2010-08-13, Thomas Jollans tho...@jollans.com wrote:
1-based indexing might seam more intuitive, but in the end,
it's just another thing you have to learn when learning a
language, like commas make tuples, and somebody studying a
programming language learns it, and gets used to it if they
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 19:14:44 +0200, Thomas Jollans wrote:
Where it all started is that 0-based indexing gives languages like C a
very nice property: a[i] and *(a+i) are equivalent in C. From a language
design viewpoint, I think that's quite a strong argument. Languages
based directly on C
On 08/10/10 06:36, Bartc wrote:
And if the context is Python, I doubt whether the choice of 0-based over a
1-based makes that much difference in execution speed.
And I doubt anyone cares about execution speed when deciding whether to
use 1-based or 0-based array. The reason why you want to
Sorry the message gets cuts off by an accidental press of send button.
On 08/14/10 04:31, Lie Ryan wrote:
On 08/10/10 06:36, Bartc wrote:
And if the context is Python, I doubt whether the choice of 0-based over a
1-based makes that much difference in execution speed.
And I doubt anyone
On 8/13/2010 11:27 AM, Den wrote:
I smile every time I see the non-nonsensical sentence The first
thing, therefore, is in thing[0] in a programming language learning
book or tutorial. I laugh every time I hear someone defend that as
common sense.
If one thinks in terms of slicing at gap
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Martin Gregorie
mar...@address-in-sig.invalid wrote:
In a higher level language 1-based indexing is just as limiting as 0-
based indexing. What you really want is the ability to declare the index
range to suit the problem: in Algol 60 it is very useful to be
Terry Reedy wrote:
On 8/9/2010 11:16 AM, Grant Edwards wrote:
Just for the record:
I sincerely apologize for my rant. I usually don't loose control so
heavily, but this Rick person makes me mad (killfile'd now)
IOW, the Ugly American.
No! That's not what I said. I'm myself one of those
Ben Finney wrote:
D'Arcy J.M. Cain da...@druid.net writes:
No. You are giving me math and logic but the subject was common
sense.
Common sense is often unhelpful, and in such cases the best way to teach
something is to plainly contradict that common sense.
Common sense, for
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 13:51:17 +0200
Jean-Michel Pichavant jeanmic...@sequans.com wrote:
Pardon the response to the response. I missed Ben's message.
Ben Finney wrote:
D'Arcy J.M. Cain da...@druid.net writes:
No. You are giving me math and logic but the subject was common
sense.
1) Why do Python lists start with element [0], instead of element
[1]? Common sense would seem to suggest that lists should start
with [1].
Because Zero is the neutral element of addition operation. And indexes
(and all adresses in computing) involve with addition much more than
On 2010-08-07, Hexamorph hexamo...@gmx.net wrote:
Lurking for long enough to know your style. Looking at your Unicode
rant, combined with some other comments and your general I am right
and you are wrong because you disagree with me. style, I came to
the conclusion, that you are either a
On 8/9/2010 11:16 AM, Grant Edwards wrote:
IOW, the Ugly American.
[snip hate rant]
Stereotypically bashing Americans is as ugly and obnoxious as bashing
any other ethnic group. I have traveled the world and Americans are no
worse, but are pretty much the same mix of good and bad. It is
On 2010-08-09, Terry Reedy tjre...@udel.edu wrote:
On 8/9/2010 11:16 AM, Grant Edwards wrote:
IOW, the Ugly American.
[snip hate rant]
Stereotypically bashing Americans
I wasn't bashing Americans. I was making light of a certain type of
American tourist commonly denoted by the phrase ugly
D'Arcy J.M. Cain da...@druid.net wrote in message
news:mailman.1735.1281185722.1673.python-l...@python.org...
On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 13:48:32 +0200
News123 news1...@free.fr wrote:
It makes sense in assembly language and even in many byte code languages.
It makes sense if you look at the
Nobody nob...@nowhere.com wrote in message
news:pan.2010.08.07.15.23.59.515...@nowhere.com...
On Sat, 07 Aug 2010 13:48:32 +0200, News123 wrote:
Common sense is wrong. There are many compelling advantages to
numbering from zero instead of one:
http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/1950
Not to prolong a good food fight, but IIRC, many years ago in QBasic,
one could choose
OPTION BASE 0
or
OPTION BASE 1
to make arrays start with element [0] or element [1], respectively. Could
such a feature be added to Python without significantly bloating the
interpreter?
Then, if starting
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 10:24 AM, Default User hunguponcont...@gmail.com wrote:
Not to prolong a good food fight, but IIRC, many years ago in QBasic,
one could choose
OPTION BASE 0
or
OPTION BASE 1
to make arrays start with element [0] or element [1], respectively. Could
such a feature
Default User wrote:
Not to prolong a good food fight, but IIRC, many years ago in QBasic,
one could choose
OPTION BASE 0
or
OPTION BASE 1
to make arrays start with element [0] or element [1], respectively.
Could such a feature be added to Python without significantly bloating
the
On 2010-08-08 05:18, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
Was it this thread where I commented that many early BASICs would
allocate an eleven element array on
DIM A(10)
VB.net does this -- to cater for the classic VB programmer who is used
to being able to index the number in brackets, and the .net
On Aug 7, 2010, at 5:46 AM, Vito 'ZeD' De Tullio wrote:
Default User wrote:
From the emperor's new clothes department:
1) Why do Python lists start with element [0], instead of element
[1]?
Common sense would seem to suggest that lists should start with
[1].
1 - 100 of 125 matches
Mail list logo
