Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!lll-winken!ames!amdahl!rtech!mikes@rtech.UUCP From: mikes@rtech.UUCP (Mike Schilling) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: Language principles Message-ID: <4721@rtech.rtech.com> Date: 10 Feb 90 18:08:58 GMT References: <1990Feb9.181942.24649@utzoo.uucp> Sender: news@rtech.rtech.com Lines: 17 From article <1990Feb9.181942.24649@utzoo.uucp>, by henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer): > In article chuckp@ncr-fc.FtCollins.NCR.com (Chuck Phillips) writes: >>John> ZERO-ONE-INFINITY: The only reasonable numbers are zero, one, and >>John> infinity. >> >>On most of the points I agree. However, this restriction seems a bit >>bizarre... Could you provide a bit more context to this? ... > > The point of this rule, which goes back a long way, is that an arbitrary > limit will usually get in the way eventually. > ... > The only good numbers are zero (don't do it > at all), one (do it but don't let the issue of "how many" come up), and > infinity (let the user decide how many he wants). I also remember a suggestion that languages force symbolic names to be used for constants other than zero and one, to make it harder to embed magic numbers in code. I think this was Glenford Myers's idea.