Talk:Variable declaration reset: Difference between revisions
Content added Content deleted
(→i>1: avoiding lower-bound differences) |
(→i>1) |
||
Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
:Maybe a bit late now but you could make it lower-bound independent if it was curr>1 instead of i>1 - the effect would be the same. --[[User:Tigerofdarkness|Tigerofdarkness]] ([[User talk:Tigerofdarkness|talk]]) 11:13, 17 April 2022 (UTC) |
:Maybe a bit late now but you could make it lower-bound independent if it was curr>1 instead of i>1 - the effect would be the same. --[[User:Tigerofdarkness|Tigerofdarkness]] ([[User talk:Tigerofdarkness|talk]]) 11:13, 17 April 2022 (UTC) |
||
::Yeah, that would be(/have been) fine too. I also realised far too late that I should have asked for the values instead of the indexes, so we'd get consistent results across 0-based and 1-based indexes... Nevermind. --[[User:Petelomax|Pete Lomax]] ([[User talk:Petelomax|talk]]) 13:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:27, 17 April 2022
i>1
(minor point) I think I may have sold you all a bit of a dummy with Phix's i>1, which is correct because of it's 1-based indexes, and the JavaScript typo of i>1 which should have been/is now i>0, but luckily it should make no difference. I also wonder if algol68 should be i>LWB s ?? --Pete Lomax (talk) 02:07, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- God point, Pete - I've adjusted the code and added a bit more explanation. --Tigerofdarkness (talk) 13:15, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- Maybe a bit late now but you could make it lower-bound independent if it was curr>1 instead of i>1 - the effect would be the same. --Tigerofdarkness (talk) 11:13, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, that would be(/have been) fine too. I also realised far too late that I should have asked for the values instead of the indexes, so we'd get consistent results across 0-based and 1-based indexes... Nevermind. --Pete Lomax (talk) 13:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)