Re: One-based indexes in XPath
On 20/05/2008, Justin Johansson <procode@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Perhaps you are not (a devil's advocate) but that's outright statement > ("the only correct approach ..." ) without giving any justification. I gave a justification. > > "0-based indexing is a frequent source of bugs, due to the mismatch in > language that now enters the mental thought process." > > "The first element is numbered 0. It should be numbered 1, because that > is the meaning of 1 in an ordinal context - the first item, not the > second." > > Sorry, that is a fuzzy argument. Reminds me of arithmetic tables in No it isn't. > primary school :- > > 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 > 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 > 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 > > Now ask the kids what is more difficult to learn, English or Arithmetic? > (when the decade changes on the same row). The decade does not change on the same row. Each row is a single decade. > P.S. Good reading is Simon Singh on "Fermat's Last Theorem". The concept I have read it. > of zero was a big thing in math history sublimed only by the invention or > discovery (take your pick) of the square root of minus one. But that is irrelevant. Zero is zero, not one.
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format