in reply to Re^2: why the array index has to start at 0??
in thread why the array index has to start at 0??

we never call first as "0", we always call first as '1'. so this lead to this thinking.

Really?

It's not exactly a foreign concept.

  • Comment on Re^3: why the array index has to start at 0??

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^4: why the array index has to start at 0??
by AnomalousMonk (Archbishop) on Oct 13, 2013 at 07:21 UTC
    The first century AD was century zero.

    I thought the first century A.D. was century 1, the first year of which was year 1 A.D. (with the year before being 1 B.C.), the concept of "zero" not percolating into European thought until some non-zero number of centuries later. Which is why, twenty centuries later, we are stuck with 2001 being the first year of the twenty-first century.

[reply]
      > the first year of which was year 1 A.D. (with the year before being 1 B.C.)

      Actually the troubles arising from not having a year 0 are a very good argument for arrays starting with 0. :)

      Cheers Rolf
      (addicted to the Perl Programming Language and ☆☆☆☆ :)

      PS: Je suis Charlie!

[reply]
      oops, fixed.
[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom