• Michiel Helvensteijn (10/10) Jul 08 2009 I've been reading the "Case Range Statement" topic with some interest.
• Bill Baxter (6/14) Jul 08 2009 I think the answer is "no". Probably most everything to say about it
• dsimcha (3/11) Jul 08 2009 I've suggested 0.5 as a compromise in the past (ok I haven't but that's ...
• Steven Schveighoffer (12/21) Jul 08 2009 Maybe, but it sure introduces a plethora of other problems :) For

Michiel Helvensteijn <m.helvensteijn.remove gmail.com> writes:

I've been reading the "Case Range Statement" topic with some interest.

It has occurred to me that all those problems would be solved if array
indices started with 1 instead of 0. Just let arrays be indexed from 1 to
size and make the a..b syntax inclusive.

I'll be expecting this change to be put in D forthwith. ;-)

No, but seriously. Complete loss of backwards compatibility aside, wouldn't
this change solve the range problem to everyones satisfaction? Like, in
theory?

-- 
Michiel Helvensteijn

Bill Baxter <wbaxter gmail.com> writes:

On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 10:48 AM, Michiel
Helvensteijn<m.helvensteijn.remove gmail.com> wrote:
 I've been reading the "Case Range Statement" topic with some interest.

 It has occurred to me that all those problems would be solved if array
 indices started with 1 instead of 0. Just let arrays be indexed from 1 to
 size and make the a..b syntax inclusive.

 I'll be expecting this change to be put in D forthwith. ;-)

 No, but seriously. Complete loss of backwards compatibility aside, wouldn't
 this change solve the range problem to everyones satisfaction? Like, in
 theory?

I think the answer is "no".  Probably most everything to say about it
has already been said in this thread:
http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/1950

--bb

dsimcha <dsimcha yahoo.com> writes:

== Quote from Michiel Helvensteijn (m.helvensteijn.remove gmail.com)'s article
 I've been reading the "Case Range Statement" topic with some interest.
 It has occurred to me that all those problems would be solved if array
 indices started with 1 instead of 0. Just let arrays be indexed from 1 to
 size and make the a..b syntax inclusive.
 I'll be expecting this change to be put in D forthwith. ;-)
 No, but seriously. Complete loss of backwards compatibility aside, wouldn't
 this change solve the range problem to everyones satisfaction? Like, in
 theory?

I've suggested 0.5 as a compromise in the past (ok I haven't but that's beside
the
point).  I feel that this suggestion was dismissed without fair consideration.

"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:

On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 13:48:01 -0400, Michiel Helvensteijn  
<m.helvensteijn.remove gmail.com> wrote:

 I've been reading the "Case Range Statement" topic with some interest.

 It has occurred to me that all those problems would be solved if array
 indices started with 1 instead of 0. Just let arrays be indexed from 1 to
 size and make the a..b syntax inclusive.

 I'll be expecting this change to be put in D forthwith. ;-)

 No, but seriously. Complete loss of backwards compatibility aside,  
 wouldn't
 this change solve the range problem to everyones satisfaction? Like, in
 theory?

Maybe, but it sure introduces a plethora of other problems :)  For  
instance, all reasonable processors use 0-based indexes, so you have to  
shoehorn your 1-based design into it, causing some code bloat, and loss of  
performance.

Using zero-based indexes has many advantages, and you have to look at the  
whole picture, not just range statements.

-Steve

Marty: Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number  
and make that a little louder?
Nigel: [pause] These go to eleven.