Re: [PATCH] Exorcise "zero-dimensional" arrays (Was: Re: Should array_length() Return NULL)

On 04/04/13 05:21, Pavel Stehule wrote:
>
>>
>> Pavel
>>
> ALOGOL 60 was zero based by default, as I remember
> deliberately setting the lower bound to 1, I managed to avoid
> PASCAL and I only glanced at ADA.
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_programming_languages_%28array%29
>
>
> In Pascal and similar languages (Wirth family) is possible to define
> lower bound - any value (like PL/pgSQL). Depends on a school - but lot
> of people used 1.
>
> I remember - it was one argument for in Pascal/C flame war.
>
> Regards
>
> Pavel
>
[...]

At the time (just over 40 years ago!) I was adamant that arrays should
start with an index of one, now I much prefer zero. Probably I prefer
zero in part, because now I understand what is happening at the machine
code level, and partly because zero is the default for the main
languages I use.

Wasting time on Google (I have 'more' important things I 'should' be
doing!), I find ALGOL 60 did not appear to have a default value for the
lower index - not only that, but one could make it negative! see:
http://www.csci.csusb.edu/dick/samples/algol60.syntax.html

Anyhow, I think we should standardise on zero as the initial index to be
as consistent as practicable. However, not with a religious zeal at the
expense of practical considerations!

Cheers,
Gavin