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.<div>

<br></div><div>Cheers,</div><div>Javier.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Sean P. DeNigris <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:sean@clipperadams.com" target="_blank">sean@clipperadams.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br>

<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
feldti wrote<br>
<div class="im">&gt;<br>
&gt; 0-based - because it&#39;s oriented towards C structures (and therefore<br>
&gt; memory oriented).<br>
</div>&gt; ...<br>
<div class="im">&gt; it&#39;s not an index, its an byte-offset from<br>
&gt; the beginning of the memory.<br>
<br>
</div>I defer to those who have experience working in the C domain (not me for a<br>
long time, thank goodness). And, please if we decide to use 1-based, call it<br>
something other than index, which already has a meaning in our domain.<br>
Offset sounds good.<br>
<br>
- S<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
View this message in context: <a href="http://forum.world.st/NativeBoost-Question-zero-based-or-one-based-indexes-tp4645911p4645943.html" target="_blank">http://forum.world.st/NativeBoost-Question-zero-based-or-one-based-indexes-tp4645911p4645943.html</a><br>


Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>Lic. Javier Pim��s<br>Ciudad de Buenos Aires<br>
</div>