On Dec 15, 2006, at 11:35 PM, Morton Goldberg wrote:

> On Dec 16, 2006, at 12:07 AM, James Edward Gray II wrote:
>
>> On Dec 15, 2006, at 9:25 PM, Daniel Finnie wrote:
>>
>>> Also, is the range of the numbers 0-956 or 1-960?  I've seen  
>>> things saying that both are acceptable with no definitive answer.
>>
>> Ask Ruby.
>
> I don't see how the Ruby interpreter can answer this question. How  
> the starting positions are to be numbered is a problem-domain- 
> specific issue. The interpreter knows nothing about the problem  
> domain.
>
> Ruby arrays being zero-based might make the range 0..959 more  
> convenient to use, but this certainly doesn't preclude the 1..960  
> numbering scheme from being adopted.

0-959 was not an option in Daniel's email (look again) and I'm  
confident of Ruby's ability to count to 960.  ;)

James Edward Gray II