As programmers, we're all used to starting off things at 0, not 1.
But if I'm designing my template List, and I want the USER to be able to refer to a particular element like so:
Should I design so that the FIRST element is list.at(0) or list.at(1)?Code:list.at(n)
Which do YOU think is more intuitive?
The user of the class template will be a programmer, right? Starting from 0 would then be more intuitive.
Look up a C++ Reference and learn How To Ask Questions The Smart WayOriginally Posted by Bjarne Stroustrup (2000-10-14)
All the STL implementations, such as vector, starts at element 0. Doing it otherwise will just confuse people.
--
Mats
Compilers can produce warnings - make the compiler programmers happy: Use them!
Please don't PM me for help - and no, I don't do help over instant messengers.
To even further confuse people, allow them to set their index base. Personally, I prefer the first element of my arrays to be at index -188573.
That will be even more confusing if the default value is ((rand() % 119232712 * (rand() % 3 - 1)).
--
Mats
Compilers can produce warnings - make the compiler programmers happy: Use them!
Please don't PM me for help - and no, I don't do help over instant messengers.
It's obvious counting starts at 0 because starting at 1 wastes a perfectly good number, and in a world where integers have finite ranges, squeezing all the usefulness you can out of something so small is important.
By that account, shouldn't we start with the most negative number?
--
Mats
Compilers can produce warnings - make the compiler programmers happy: Use them!
Please don't PM me for help - and no, I don't do help over instant messengers.
Nah, it will loop around to the negative ones once it reaches INT_MAX right?By that account, shouldn't we start with the most negative number?
--
Mats
0 it is!
