Wayne Brehaut a écrit : > On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 04:52:13 +0200, Bruno Desthuilliers > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>Wayne Brehaut a écrit : >> >>>On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 04:12:04 +0200, Bruno Desthuilliers >>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>>J. Clifford Dyer a écrit : >> >>(snip) >> >>>>>Well, it's also unpythonic to start numbering a sequence at 1, but >>>>>it's clearly the right thing to do in this case. >>>> >>>>As far as I'm concerned, if I had to number a magazine about >>>>programming, I'd obviously start with 0. >>> >>>And since the "first" issue is free that would be best here too. >>> >>> >>>>Then it would be n°1, n°10, >>>>n°11, n°100 etc !-) >>> >>>But probably with enough leading zeros to last the expected lifetime >>>(8 bits should about do it?) so they'd sort properly: >>> >>>0000 0000 >>>0000 0001 >>>etc. >> >>Mmm... sort of reminds me of y2k. > > > Funny, I was thinking IPv4.
Lol. At the exact moment I hit the 'send' button, I thought of some (in)famous quote about 640k for everyone !-) And to answer your first point, 0, 1, 10, 11, 100 etc *does* sort properly... -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
