I kinda get your point, but still we are speaking of the C interface all the time. Sure in other contexts, like the TCL/SQL, the indexes start from 1. However the bind and the column function are both in the C interface.
Oh, well... I just have to wrap my mind around it. Definitely not a real problem, I was merely curious. On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 1:23 AM, Jay Kreibich <jay at kreibi.ch> wrote: > > On Mar 1, 2015, at 5:33 PM, Richard Hipp <drh at sqlite.org> wrote: > >> On 3/1/15, Paolo Bolzoni <paolo.bolzoni.brown at gmail.com> wrote: >>> Dear everyone, >>> >>> I find strange and confusing that bind indexes start from 1 (docs in >>> [1]) and instead column indexes start from 0 (doc in [2]). Is there >>> any technical reason or it is just an unlucky legacy? >> >> Seems like there was a reason for this, 11 years ago when it went in, >> but I cannot now call that reason to mind right this moment. So lets >> just call it unlucky legacy. > > Every database I?ve every used starts SQL parameter indexes from 1. I?m not > sure it is part of the SQL standard, but it is more or less the defacto > standard of SQL APIs, and might be considered part of the SQL language. > > I assume column indexes start at 0 because of C. Column indexes are used > within the context of the C language API, so it makes some sense to use C > conventions. > > > I know they?re very easy to confuse (I still do it myself), but I can kind of > see why we ended up there, even if it isn?t a very strong reason. > > -j > > > -- > Jay A. Kreibich < J A Y @ K R E I B I.C H > > > "Intelligence is like underwear: it is important that you have it, but > showing it to the wrong people has the tendency to make them feel > uncomfortable." -- Angela Johnson > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > sqlite-users mailing list > sqlite-users at mailinglists.sqlite.org > http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sqlite-users
