Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!mcvax!enea!sommar
From: sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc
Subject: Re: 0-based/1-based arrays
Message-ID: <2811@enea.se>
Date: 8 Mar 88 15:14:40 GMT
Reply-To: sommar@enea.UUCP(Erland Sommarskog)
Followup-To: comp.lang.misc
Organization: ENEA DATA AB, Sweden
Lines: 23


My critics against Oberon seems to have set of some discussion
about the base on arrays. Just a few more comments.

I have full respect for those prefer zero-based arrays, and there
are certainly occasions I would use one or two myself, but the
occasions are rare. As I said in my original post, removing the
freedoom to choose the lower limit is bad thing.

Some have said that if one wants one-based arrays, when only zero-based
arrays are available, one could just simply declare the array one 
element too large, and waste the one at index zero. This method does
not always work. As I recall from Modula-2 you can have dynamic arrays
in procedures. (Both as parameters and local variables? Doesn't matter.)
They are always zero based. If I call such a procedure with a string
the first character will be at index zero, unless I do any strange
tricks with a leading blank or so. 

-- 
Erland Sommarskog       
ENEA Data, Stockholm        
sommar@enea.UUCP           "Souvent pour s'amuser les hommes d'equipages
                            and it's like talking to a stranger" -- H&C.