On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 3:41 PM, David Fetter <david@fetter.org> wrote:
> We have dropped support, as you put it, for bigger and harder-hitting
> mistakes than this. Anybody whose code has this kind of silliness in
> it will be in other kinds of trouble, too.
While the decision to make it possible to set the lower bound index
value arbitrarily was made before I was active in the project, I
imagine it went something like this:
Person 1: We should make our arrays similar to those found in a
certain proprietary system's standard procedural language - with one
as a lower bound.
Person 2: I don't like that, it should always be zero.
Person 1: We can all be winners.
--
Peter Geoghegan
