Re: 0-based versus 1-based

2001-09-27 Thread Tom Pledger 

Thanks for the replies.  I keep forgetting to read (!!1) as "the
element at 1" and not as "the 1st element".

___
Haskell mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell

Re: 0-based versus 1-based

2001-09-27 Thread Ashley Yakeley 

At 2001-09-27 15:16, Tom Pledger wrote:

>Just as a matter of idle curiosity, is there a particular reason for
>tuples starting at element 1 (fst) whereas lists start at element 0?

'fst' (first) is an ordinal. It actually corresponds to the cardinal 
'zero'. The element at zero is the first element. The element at 37 is 
the 38th element. It's quite consistent.

-- 
Ashley Yakeley, Seattle WA


___
Haskell mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell

Re: 0-based versus 1-based

2001-09-27 Thread Jorge Adriano 

On Thursday 27 September 2001 23:16, Tom Pledger wrote:
> Just as a matter of idle curiosity, is there a particular reason for
> tuples starting at element 1 (fst) whereas lists start at element 0?
>
> fst ('x', 'y') --> 'x'
> "xy" !! 1  --> 'y'

xs = [1,2,3,4]
If I were to ask you which one is the first element of xs would you answer, 2 
because xs!!1 == 2? :)

J.A.

___
Haskell mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell