On 2013-04-04 07:42:36 +1300, Gavin Flower wrote: > On 04/04/13 05:21, Pavel Stehule wrote: > > > >> > >> 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 > > > > > >In Pascal and similar languages (Wirth family) is possible to define lower > >bound - any value (like PL/pgSQL). Depends on a school - but lot of people > >used 1. > > > >I remember - it was one argument for in Pascal/C flame war. > > > >Regards > > > >Pavel > > > [...] > > At the time (just over 40 years ago!) I was adamant that arrays should start > with an index of one, now I much prefer zero. Probably I prefer zero in > part, because now I understand what is happening at the machine code level, > and partly because zero is the default for the main languages I use. > > Wasting time on Google (I have 'more' important things I 'should' be > doing!), I find ALGOL 60 did not appear to have a default value for the > lower index - not only that, but one could make it negative! see: > http://www.csci.csusb.edu/dick/samples/algol60.syntax.html > > Anyhow, I think we should standardise on zero as the initial index to be as > consistent as practicable. However, not with a religious zeal at the > expense of practical considerations!
Changing this now, rather than on a green field, strikes me as a pretty absurd exercise in frustrating users by breaking queries subtly. Since 1 is a value index that won't always break visible. -1 Greetings, Andres Freund -- Andres Freund http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
