[REBOL] Re: On ordinal and cardinal numbers...
From: joel:neely:fedex at: 7-Jul-2001 1:44
Jeff Kreis wrote:
> > I think that having 0-based analogs of the following words
> > would be *quite* sufficient: INDEX? SKIP AT PICK POKE
>
> LENGTH?
>
I wouldn't see a change here. The block below has a length
of ten elements, regardless of which way the positions are
labeled IMHO.
1-org 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
block [ a b c d e f g h i j ]
0-org 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
just as there are ten numbers in each of the sets {1 ... 10}
and {0 ... 9}
> foo/0 ?
>
If you're referring to the naming question,
PRO: Less typing than /zero.
CON: Still subject to the 0-vs-O issue.
Not a big deal either way IMHO.
If you mean FOO/0 as a path, then I'd assume that it's still
a synonym for PICK FOO 0 and that re-interpreting it as a
synonym for PICK0 FOO 0 is not an option at this point.
Carl Has Spoken (as is his perfect right and role), so we're
only talking about the *addition* of 0-origin capabilities,
not a *change* from 1-origin to 0-origin. It is certainly the
case that adding 0-origin words/refinements doesn't break any
code (as long as we don't reinterpret paths) and that's a
legitimate concern.
Based on his phrasing
"If you really feel that you need a native or two
to deal with it..."
I assumed that the other option that had been raised (having
some sort of global flag that would switch all existing words
between 1- and 0-origin behavior) was not acceptable/feasible.
> How does SKIP change?
>
After rereading Ladislav's message more carefully, and doing
a bit of experimenting for myself, I now think I'd like to
remove SKIP/ZERO (or SKIP0) from my proposed list.
I would prefer to keep any discussion of how SKIP (etc.) behave
at the boundaries as a separate issue from the 0- or 1-origin
issue.
-jn-
---------------------------------------------------------------
There are two types of science: physics and stamp collecting!
-- Sir Arthur Eddington
joel-dot-neely-at-fedex-dot-com
