On Tuesday 18 September 2007 14:34, Robert Bradshaw wrote: > I still like the [a..b] notation that makes > things totally obvious, and I am as surprised as Peter Doyle at the > shift of topic of whether or not indices should be 0-based (which we > don't have a choice about while sticking with Python).
Well, I'll respond as to why I think they are exactly the same issue (in spirit) since I'm the one who brought up 0-based vs. 1-based. To me, it is very very intuitive that range(10) has 10 elements. The only serious point of contention is where those 10 elements start. That's why I think that these are the same issues. I'll also say that I didn't mean to open this can of worms. It was just on my mind at the time and I don't really expect us to preparse or change python to work around this. However, I could fully understand why anyone would think it a royal pain in the neck. When trying to compute something that you read on paper, it is a continual conversion and a very confusing conversion. After all, one of the classic source of programming errors is "off-by-one". -- Joel --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
