Here we use a convention of naming 0 based accessors with atOffset: and atOffset:put:. If applicable, this could be a good tradeoff. Of course, the arguments are simple integers, but the 0 index gets explicit by the selector. Cheers, Javier. On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Sean P. DeNigris <sean@clipperadams.com>wrote:
feldti wrote
0-based - because it's oriented towards C structures (and therefore memory oriented). ... it's not an index, its an byte-offset from the beginning of the memory.
I defer to those who have experience working in the C domain (not me for a long time, thank goodness). And, please if we decide to use 1-based, call it something other than index, which already has a meaning in our domain. Offset sounds good.
- S
-- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/NativeBoost-Question-zero-based-or-one-based-indexes-t... Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-- Lic. Javier Pimás Ciudad de Buenos Aires