Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #7213
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.java.programmer |
|---|---|
| From | Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> |
| Subject | Re: enhance an array's static type by a lower length-bound. |
| References | <slrnj4nm33.6gl.avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> <6k7p47d9442mcld6j2p5l4hekodard6oss@4ax.com> <4c11ff9c-3c83-45cc-85a7-9b0c05de17ff@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com> |
| Message-ID | <slrnj4pr3b.6gl.avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> (permalink) |
| Date | 2011-08-18 10:41 +0000 |
Unfortunately, Roedy completely misunderstood what my post was about. It was not about lower-bounding the indices, but about lower-bounding the *length* - thus morphing certain runtime-ArrayIndexOutOfBoundExceptions into compile-time errors. Are my postings really that hard to grasp? Even the examples I provided? Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> wrote: > Roedy Green wrote: >> I used Pascal before I used Java. The one advantage of Java 0-based >> arrays is you KNOW what the base is without having to check. >> It takes a bit of a mental shift, but eventually you always think >> iteration starting at 0, just as when you were a kid, you would not >> start counting at anything but 1. > +1 +1 also from me, for shredding this utterly wrong interpretation of my post.
Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
enhance an array's static type by a lower length-bound. Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-08-17 15:04 +0000
Re: enhance an array's static type by a lower length-bound. Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-08-17 12:34 -0500
Re: enhance an array's static type by a lower length-bound. Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-08-18 13:14 +0000
Re: enhance an array's static type by a lower length-bound. Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-08-18 10:30 -0500
Re: enhance an array's static type by a lower length-bound. Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-08-18 18:12 +0000
Re: enhance an array's static type by a lower length-bound. Joshua Cranmer <Pidgeot18@verizon.invalid> - 2011-08-18 20:59 -0500
Re: enhance an array's static type by a lower length-bound. Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2011-08-17 20:42 +0200
Re: enhance an array's static type by a lower length-bound. Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-08-18 21:44 +0000
Re: enhance an array's static type by a lower length-bound. Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2011-08-19 13:24 +0200
Re: enhance an array's static type by a lower length-bound. Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-08-20 17:20 +0000
Re: enhance an array's static type by a lower length-bound. Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2011-08-17 22:11 -0700
Re: enhance an array's static type by a lower length-bound. Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-08-17 23:17 -0700
Re: enhance an array's static type by a lower length-bound. Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-08-18 10:41 +0000
Re: enhance an array's static type by a lower length-bound. Patricia Shanahan <pats@acm.org> - 2011-08-18 06:34 -0700
Re: enhance an array's static type by a lower length-bound. Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-08-18 18:08 +0000
Re: enhance an array's static type by a lower length-bound. Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2011-08-18 17:53 -0700
Re: enhance an array's static type by a lower length-bound. Andreas Leitgeb <avl@gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at> - 2011-08-20 17:31 +0000
Re: enhance an array's static type by a lower length-bound. Lew <lewbloch@gmail.com> - 2011-08-20 10:50 -0700
Re: enhance an array's static type by a lower length-bound. Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2011-08-21 10:47 +0200
Re: enhance an array's static type by a lower length-bound. Michal Kleczek <kleku@poczta.onet.pl> - 2011-08-21 20:27 +0200
csiph-web