Re: why the array index has to start at 0??

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: why the array index has to start at 0?? by Anonymous Monk on Oct 13, 2013 at 06:41 UTC
'0' does not come in natural no. It comes in whole no. Natural no. starts with '1'	[reply]
Re^3: why the array index has to start at 0?? by davido (Cardinal) on Oct 13, 2013 at 06:50 UTC
Wikipedia: By most definitions 0 is a natural number,... Dave	[reply]
Re^4: why the array index has to start at 0?? by hdb (Monsignor) on Oct 13, 2013 at 10:02 UTC
From Wikipedia Natural_number as well: There is no universal agreement about whether to include zero in the set of natural numbers: some define the natural numbers to be the positive integers {1, 2, 3, ...}, while for others the term designates the non-negative integers {0, 1, 2, 3, ...}. The former definition is the traditional one, with the latter definition having first appeared in the 19th century.	[reply]
Re^5: why the array index has to start at 0?? by lidden (Curate) on Oct 13, 2013 at 11:21 UTC
Re^6: why the array index has to start at 0?? by LanX (Saint) on Oct 13, 2013 at 11:55 UTC
Re^2: why the array index has to start at 0?? by Anonymous Monk on Dec 21, 2012 at 08:10 UTC
zero is not a natural number. its a whole no.!!!!!!!!!	[reply]
Re^3: why the array index has to start at 0?? by AnomalousMonk (Archbishop) on Dec 21, 2012 at 14:15 UTC
No, it's a hole no.!	[reply]
Re^2: why the array index has to start at 0?? by targetsmart (Curate) on Jun 23, 2009 at 10:27 UTC
IMO it makes much sense for the array to have the first index at 1. we never call first as "0", we always call first as '1'. so this lead to this thinking. Vivek -- 'I' am not the body, 'I' am the 'soul', which has no beginning or no end, no attachment or no aversion, nothing to attain or lose.	[reply]
Re^3: why the array index has to start at 0?? by mirod (Canon) on Jun 23, 2009 at 10:38 UTC
It might make sense to you, but chances are that it won't for the maintainers of your code. Arrays in most languages I know start at index 0, I am not sure going against such a common characteristic is such a good idea.	[reply]
Re^3: why the array index has to start at 0?? by ikegami (Patriarch) on Jun 23, 2009 at 15:17 UTC
we never call first as "0", we always call first as '1'. so this lead to this thinking. Really? The first km my car drove was km 0000000 on the odometer. The first inch on a ruler is inch zero. ~~The first century AD was century zero.~~ The first raffle ticket on the spool is xxx000. It's not exactly a foreign concept.	[reply]
Re^4: why the array index has to start at 0?? by AnomalousMonk (Archbishop) on Oct 13, 2013 at 07:21 UTC
The first century AD was century zero. I thought the first century A.D. was century 1, the first year of which was year 1 A.D. (with the year before being 1 B.C.), the concept of "zero" not percolating into European thought until some non-zero number of centuries later. Which is why, twenty centuries later, we are stuck with 2001 being the first year of the twenty-first century.	[reply]
Re^5: why the array index has to start at 0?? by LanX (Saint) on Mar 16, 2015 at 00:27 UTC
Re^5: why the array index has to start at 0?? by ikegami (Patriarch) on Nov 15, 2013 at 18:58 UTC
Re^3: why the array index has to start at 0?? by Anonymous Monk on Jun 23, 2009 at 12:16 UTC
Then use COBOL instead.	[reply]
Re^3: why the array index has to start at 0?? by Anonymous Monk on Jun 24, 2009 at 07:19 UTC
On your first birthday, did you turn one or two? :D	[reply]
A reply falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.


Don't ask to ask, just ask
	PerlMonks