On Wed, 01 Apr 2009 03:37:41 +0100, Lada Kugis <lada.ku...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 19:29:56 -0700, Chris Rebert <c...@rebertia.com>
wrote:
Sort of, but it's *really* not idiomatic. You'd have to declare the
arrays to be one longer than they actually are so that array[N] is a
valid index. And then you'd end up not using the true first element of
the array. Not to mention most library functions use 0-numbering, so
you'd have to work around that as well.
So, it can be done, but you're going against the grain of the language.
I use fortran libraries, so that is not a problem for me. I only make
the change once, while transferring the elements ... uhmm, make that
twice.
Two opportunities to forget to lie about how big your array is :-)
I wrote in my other post, 0 is weird to me, I have model of solution
on paper ... if I keep 0 then all comes out different. And while
comparing, I always get them mixed up. That's why I always try to
adapt it to the paper situation.
Ever considered adapting the paper situation to it? You might find
that the results come out more naturally. Alternatively, idiomatic
Python seems to have a strong tendency not to need subscripting,
since you spend most of your time iterating through lists instead.
--
Rhodri James *-* Wildebeeste Herder to the Masses
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
