2013/4/3 Gavin Flower <gavinflo...@archidevsys.co.nz> > On 04/04/13 04:58, Pavel Stehule wrote: > > > > > 2013/4/3 Gavin Flower <gavinflo...@archidevsys.co.nz> > >> On 04/04/13 03:02, Florian Pflug wrote: >> >>> On Apr3, 2013, at 15:30 , Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> wrote: >>> >>>> On 04/02/2013 02:46 PM, Florian Pflug wrote: >>>> >>>>> If we're going to break compatibility, we should IMHO get rid of >>>>> non-zero lower bounds all together. My guess is that the number of >>>>> affected users wouldn't be much higher than for the proposed patch, >>>>> and it'd allow lossless mapping to most language's native array types… >>>>> >>>> That would actually break a HUGE number of users, since the default >>>> lower >>>> bound is 1. I have seen any number of pieces if code that rely on that. >>>> >>> Uh, yeah, we should make it 1 then, not 0, then. As long as the bound >>> is fixed, conversion to native C/Java/Ruby/Python/... arrays would still >>> be lossless. >>> >>> best regards, >>> Florian Pflug >>> >>> >>> Zero as the default lower bound is consistent with most languages >> (especially the common ones like C, C++, Java, & Python), in fact I don't >> remember any language where that is not the case (ignoring SQL) - and I've >> written programs in about 20 languages. >> > > pascal, ADA, and ALGOL like languages > > Regards > > Pavel > > ALOGOL 60 was zero based by default, as I remember deliberately > setting the lower bound to 1, I managed to avoid PASCAL and I only glanced > at ADA. >
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_programming_languages_%28array%29 Regards Pavel > > > Cheers, > Gavin >
