python for loop
brendon.wickham at gmail.com
Wed Apr 1 05:17:41 CEST 2009
Since when should a machine (that's what a computer is after all), be
forced to contort itself into something that is capable of reflecting
the laws of physical matter?
Better perhaps to look at it from another angle - it's
counter-intuitive to think that the digital should mirror the
analogue. The digital can *virtualise* the real world, but it doesn't
do that by *working like* the real world.
It's not theory, it's actually what it is.
2009/4/1 Lada Kugis <lada.kugis at gmail.com>:
> On Tue, 31 Mar 2009 19:29:56 -0700, Chris Rebert <clp2 at rebertia.com>
>>Sort of, but it's *really* not idiomatic. You'd have to declare the
>>arrays to be one longer than they actually are so that array[N] is a
>>valid index. And then you'd end up not using the true first element of
>>the array. Not to mention most library functions use 0-numbering, so
>>you'd have to work around that as well.
>>So, it can be done, but you're going against the grain of the language.
> I use fortran libraries, so that is not a problem for me. I only make
> the change once, while transferring the elements ... uhmm, make that
> I wrote in my other post, 0 is weird to me, I have model of solution
> on paper ... if I keep 0 then all comes out different. And while
> comparing, I always get them mixed up. That's why I always try to
> adapt it to the paper situation.
More information about the Python-list