Subject: Re: [xsl] One-based indexes in XPath|
From: "Colin Adams" <colinpauladams@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 19:22:33 +0100
On 20/05/2008, Justin Johansson <procode@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Perhaps you are not (a devil's advocate) but that's outright statement > ("the only correct approach ..." ) without giving any justification. I gave a justification. > > "0-based indexing is a frequent source of bugs, due to the mismatch in > language that now enters the mental thought process." > > "The first element is numbered 0. It should be numbered 1, because that > is the meaning of 1 in an ordinal context - the first item, not the > second." > > Sorry, that is a fuzzy argument. Reminds me of arithmetic tables in No it isn't. > primary school :- > > 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 > 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 > > Now ask the kids what is more difficult to learn, English or Arithmetic? > (when the decade changes on the same row). The decade does not change on the same row. Each row is a single decade. > P.S. Good reading is Simon Singh on "Fermat's Last Theorem". The concept I have read it. > of zero was a big thing in math history sublimed only by the invention or > discovery (take your pick) of the square root of minus one. But that is irrelevant. Zero is zero, not one.