Since when should a machine (that's what a computer is after all), be forced to contort itself into something that is capable of reflecting the laws of physical matter?
Better perhaps to look at it from another angle - it's counter-intuitive to think that the digital should mirror the analogue. The digital can *virtualise* the real world, but it doesn't do that by *working like* the real world. It's not theory, it's actually what it is. 2009/4/1 Lada Kugis <lada.ku...@gmail.com>: > 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. > 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. > > Lada > > >> >>Cheers, >>Chris > -- > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list > -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
