+1 for consistency across the board. Since SAGE extends Python, that means
going with 0-based lists. The documentation needs LOTS of warnings regarding
this, especially since users are allowed to pass commands directly into the
other systems. But SAGE objects should be zero-based.
On Sat, 5 May 2007, Justin C. Walker wrote:
>
>
> On May 5, 2007, at 14:20 , William Stein wrote:
>> On 5/5/07, Michel <michel.vandenbergh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> [snip]
>> This inconsistency isn't a bug, since it's clearly documented in the
>> maxima interface. However it is confusing. I should either change the
>> maxima indexing to be 1-based again (like Maxima's native indexing),
>> or change the other interfaces (to MAGMA, PARI, Mathematica) to
>> all be 0-based. I'll wait for comments from people reading this
>> before
>> deciding.
>>
>> sage: magma([5,7])[1] # good or bad?
>> 5
>
> Good.
>
> It really depends on whether we (or maybe better: our target
> audience) are mathematicians or computer scientists. If the former,
> we should tend to make indices 1-based; otherwise, 0-based. My
> recent experience is that I have to "fix" a lot of (ahem) typos in my
> code for just this reason (I'm thinking 1-based).
>
> Of course, it doesn't pay to "fix" python, and this can lead to
> problems when "mixing metaphors", as above. No really good answer,
> it seems to me.
>
> Justin
>
> --
> They said it couldn't be done, but sometimes it
> doesn't work out that way.
> - Casey Stengel
> --
>
>
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sage-devel-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel
URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
|
