On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 11:20 AM, Michael Kay <mike(_at_)saxonica(_dot_)com>
wrote:
But I think 0 based indexes in low level languages (I
consider Java or C to be low level than XPath. Even I am
talking about assembly
languages.) have relation to hardware addressing.
I don't think hardware addressing is the only benefit of 0-based addressing.
It also makes computations easier. If you number the rows and columns on a
chessboard from 0-7, and the squares from 0-63, then the square number is
row*8+column, whereas with 1-based addressing it is (row-1)*8+column.
Shouldn't that last equation be (row-1)*8+column-1 ?
And we do sometimes use 0-based logic in real life too. In many countries
the "first floor" is the one above where you enter the building; and in many
societies a child is "1 year old" between 12 months and 24 months after
their birth.
But on balance I do think 1-based logic was the right choice for XPath and
XSLT.
Michael Kay
http://www.saxonica.com/
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
To unsubscribe, go to: http://lists.mulberrytech.com/xsl-list/
or e-mail:
<mailto:xsl-list-unsubscribe(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com>
--~--
--~------------------------------------------------------------------
XSL-List info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/xsl/xsl-list
To unsubscribe, go to: http://lists.mulberrytech.com/xsl-list/
or e-mail: <mailto:xsl-list-unsubscribe(_at_)lists(_dot_)mulberrytech(_dot_)com>
--~--