Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject: Re: Inclusive or exclusive array
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2019 20:41:28 +0200
Organization: Decebal Computing
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <87v9vjmkkn.fsf@munus.decebal.nl>
References: <87zhkvmqx8.fsf@munus.decebal.nl> <qhpsjq$ahi$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="836bcd58d7669a6d0685c847623fc8c3"; logging-data="17301"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/JPeM3T+IBYFj5WbGfyOpMDQb8k4FZXx8="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.1 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:CKWDeTZ/1dAdVeKSM9flsTT4tRg= sha1:C6lSzSoQb01WmoDvICGQunxlFHw=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:39032

Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> writes:

> On 7/30/2019 12:24 PM, Cecil Westerhof wrote:
>> I am writing the following method:
>>      Long[] getFibonacciArray(int from, int to);
>>
>> What is more logical: an inclusive or an exclusive array?
>>
>> Should:
>>      getFibonacciArray(12, 12)
>>
>> return 'Long[1] { 144 }', or 'Long[0] {  }'?
>
>     There are precedents for both, the latter being noticeably
> more common.  There is also precedent for
>
> Long[12] {144, 233, 377, 610, 987, 1597,
>           2584, 4181, 6765, 10946, 17711, 28657}
>
> ... with a likely change of parameter name.
>
>     Citations:
>
> 	java.lang.String::substring(int, int)
> 	java.util.stream.IntStream::rangeClosed(int, int)
> 	java.lang.String::new(char[], int, int)

I was later also thinking about the third, but for the moment I go for
exclusive.

-- 
Cecil Westerhof
Senior Software Engineer
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cecilwesterhof