Re: [xsl] One-based indexes in XPath

["Colin Adams" <colinpauladams@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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.