David Squire <> writes:
> And entirely unrelated to helping with the OP's question.
Sorry. I guess I didn't realize I was getting paid for working at this
help desk and therefore obligated to answer questions.
> I can just
> as easily say that the value at the nth position is x^(n-1), and then
> count 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.
The difference is that I'm talking about an established rule that's been
widely agreed upon for decades - and that's just within the realm of
computer science. You, on the other hand, are just making stuff up to
rationalize your mistakes.
> You have again snipped context that made it clear that there was no
> ambiguity in what I posted.
You're right - It was unambiguously wrong.
> Choosing to start at 0 is indeed arbitrary
arbitrary, adj:
1. Determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason,
or principle: stopped at the first motel we passed, an arbitrary
choice.
2. Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference: The diet
imposes overall calorie limits, but daily menus are arbitrary.
3. Established by a court or judge rather than by a specific law or
statute: an arbitrary penalty.
4. Not limited by law; despotic: the arbitrary rule of a dictator.
The original decision to start at zero was indeed arbitrary. But that was a
long time ago. One could just as easily argue that the use of the Arabic
numerals 1 and 0 are arbitrary.
Now it's an established convention, and following it is not subject to
individual judgment or preference, assuming of course that you expect to
be understood.
sherm--
--
Cocoa programming in Perl:
http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
Hire me! My resume:
http://www.dot-app.org