On 20 Apr 2005 12:52:19 GMT, Antoon Pardon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Op 2005-04-20, Torsten Bronger schreef <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Hallöchen! > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick Efford) writes: > > > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> Many people I know ask why Python does slicing the way it does..... > >> > >>> Can anyone /please/ give me a good defense/justification??? > >> > >>> I'm referring to why mystring[:4] gives me elements 0, 1, 2 and 3 > >>> but *NOT* mystring[4] (5th element). > >> > >> mystring[:4] can be read as "the first four characters of > >> mystring". If it included mystring[4], you'd have to read it as > >> "the first five characters of mystring", which wouldn't match the > >> appearance of '4' in the slice. > >> > >> [...] > >> > >> It all makes perfect sense when you look at it this way! > > > > Well, also in my experience every variant has its warts. You'll > > never avoid the "i+1" or "i-1" expressions in your indices or loops > > (or your mind ;). > > > > It's interesting to muse about a language that starts at "1" for all > > arrays and strings, as some more or less obsolete languages do. I > > think this is more intuitive, since most people (including > > mathematicians) start counting at "1". The reason for starting at > > "0" is easier memory address calculation, so nothing for really high > > level languages. > > Personnaly I would like to have the choice. Sometimes I prefer to > start at 0, sometimes at 1 and other times at -13 or +7. >
-1. You can start arrays at 0 or 1 (and arbitrary bases? I don't recall) in VB, and it's an unmitigated disaster. It adds needless complexity. What our slicing system loses in elegance in a few cases, it more than makes up for in consistency throughout all programs. Peace Bill Mill bill.mill at gmail.com -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
