Re: Zero-based indexing option?

*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net*Subject*: [mg61655] Re: [mg61621] Zero-based indexing option?*From*: Murray Eisenberg <murray at math.umass.edu>*Date*: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 21:07:14 -0400 (EDT)*Organization*: Mathematics & Statistics, Univ. of Mass./Amherst*References*: <200510240544.BAA29061@smc.vnet.net>*Reply-to*: murray at math.umass.edu*Sender*: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com

Are you sure you cannot avoid this procedural way of coding altogether, by using instead Nest or NestList? Matt wrote: > Hello, > I am a C/C++ developer by trade and zero-based indexing is the norm. > When dealing with a set of objects, if I want to iterate over all of > them for some reason or another, I'm used to doing something like this: > > unsigned int ii(0); > while (ii < elementCount) > { > // do something > ++ii; > } > > where elementCount represents the number of elements in a set of > objects. In Mathematica, I'm getting into the habit of doing something > like this: > > iterations = Length[(* of something *)] ; > iterations++; > ii = 1; > While[ii < iterations, (* do something *); ii++] > > As you can see, I need to initialize my iterator to 1 and in order to > keep strictly 'less than' semantics, I need to increase the size of my > object set by one. This is not a big deal, and if I have no other > choice, I'll probably settle for setting the iterator to one and using > 'less than or equal' semantics for the loop constraint so I'm not > altering the size of the object set. > > However, it would be great if there were a Mathematica option or code > driven setting that would allow me to use zero-based indexing. Is > there such a thing? > > Thanks, > > Matt > > -- Murray Eisenberg murray at math.umass.edu Mathematics & Statistics Dept. Lederle Graduate Research Tower phone 413 549-1020 (H) University of Massachusetts 413 545-2859 (W) 710 North Pleasant Street fax 413 545-1801 Amherst, MA 01003-9305

**References**:**Zero-based indexing option?***From:*"Matt" <anonmous69@netscape.net>