OpenEuphoria

Re: 0-based Indexing

• Posted by jbrown105 at speedymail.org Jul 17, 2003
• 488 views

Ok now I understand.

This is a pretty good point in favor of 0 based indexing.

jbrown

On Fri, Jul 18, 2003 at 07:49:03AM +1000, Derek Parnell wrote:
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: <jbrown105 at speedymail.org>
> To: "EUforum" <EUforum at topica.com>
> Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 5:10 AM
> Subject: Re: 0-based Indexing
> 
> 
> > On Thu, Jul 17, 2003 at 12:33:38PM +1000, dm31 at uow.edu.au wrote:
> > > 
> > <snip> 
> > > Also, for example. say I want to use 1 byte of storage as my 
> > > index var. If I start at 0, I get from 0-255 different 
> > > elements, whereas if I used 1-base then I could only get 1-
> > > 255.
> > <snip> 
> > 
> > Um, in C, int x[255] would give elements 0-254.
> > 
> > Not sure what language you are talking about.
> 
> Jim,
> he is not talking about declaring an array with a '255', but using a BYTE to
> hold the entire set of index values for an array 0-255. To declare such an array
> he would write "int x[256]" of course.
> -- 
> Derek
> 
> 
> 
> TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
> 
> 

-- 
 /"\  ASCII ribbon              | http://www.geocities.com/jbrown1050/
 \ /  campain against           | Linux User:190064
  X   HTML in e-mail and        | Linux Machine:84163
 /*\  news, and unneeded MIME   | http://verify.stanford.edu/evote.html