I think that specific repository has the additional function of testing the implementation of indexing in base, which is written with the explicit intention of being easy to extend. Two-based indexing is mostly useless, but implementing it you get the chance to explore and test all the different things that needs to work for other packages to be able to extend indexing in more useful ways.
// T On Friday, September 25, 2015 at 3:30:02 PM UTC+2, Spencer Russell wrote: > > I understand it as a meditation (koan?) on the futility of arguing about > where indices should begin, and where they come to rest. > > Hold it lightly, and be enlightened. > > -s > > > On Sep 25, 2015, at 7:00 AM, Páll Haraldsson <pall.ha...@gmail.com > <javascript:>> wrote: > > > > https://libraries.io/julia/TwoBasedIndexing > > > > > > > http://python-history.blogspot.is/2013/10/why-python-uses-0-based-indexing.html > > > > > [While Guido's former ABC used 1-based] > > > > "Guido van RossumOctober 24, 2013 at 8:49 AM > > To anyone who prefers 1-based indexing: you are the same people who > screwed up the calendar, starting at year 1" > > > > > > I think my next year will start at January 2.. > > > > I do not want to start an argument on 0-based vs. 1-based, I've grown to > like Julia's 1-based variant. Just 2-based seemed odd.. Probably a prove of > concept, for more general n-based/Pascal arrays.. > > > > -- > > Palli. > > > >
