Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!newsfeed.utanet.at!newsfeed2.utanet.at!newscore.univie.ac.at!aconews-feed.univie.ac.at!aconews.univie.ac.at!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer From: Andreas Leitgeb Subject: Re: enhance an array's static type by a lower length-bound. References: <6k7p47d9442mcld6j2p5l4hekodard6oss@4ax.com> <4c11ff9c-3c83-45cc-85a7-9b0c05de17ff@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com> Reply-To: avl@logic.at User-Agent: slrn/pre0.9.9-111 (Linux) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: Date: 18 Aug 2011 10:41:47 GMT Lines: 18 NNTP-Posting-Host: gamma.logic.tuwien.ac.at X-Trace: 1313664107 tunews.univie.ac.at 71616 128.130.175.3 X-Complaints-To: abuse@tuwien.ac.at Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:7213 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 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.