Again on 0-based vs. 1-based indexing

Re:Again on 0-based vs. 1-based indexing by stabbles on Wednesday January 20, 2021 @07:05AM (#25845414)

Now do a closed range in type uint8_t representing [0x00, 0xff]

Or how about a closed range in uint64_t that ends at 0xffffffffffffffff

Or a range from roughly a = -9223372036854775808 to b = 9223372036854775807 in int64_t. b - a will overflow.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Again on 0-based vs. 1-based indexing by user-the-name on Wednesday January 20, 2021 @07:50AM (#25845799)

How about an empty range in type uint8_t?

The fact of the matter is, for a type that can hold N distinct values, there are N + 1 different possible interval lengths. You can not represent intervals over a fixed-width type in that same type.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Again on 0-based vs. 1-based indexing by stabbles on Wednesday January 20, 2021 @08:05AM (#25845927)

Exactly, there's no silver bullet for ranges

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Again on 0-based vs. 1-based indexing by samatman on Wednesday January 20, 2021 @01:44PM (#25850211)

Did you mean open range? I've never encountered a circumstance where closed ranges are useful, though I presume they exist.

And yes, I think any typed language with a less expressive range syntax than Ada has some work to do. That still leaves open the question of the default, and I maintain that 0 <= .. < n is the correct one.

[ Parent | on HN ]