为什么程序员偏爱int i=0开始一个for循环

 

Most experienced C++ programmers have a habit that may seem weird at first: Their programs invariably begin counting from 0 rather than from 1. For example, if we reduce the outer for loop of the program above to its essentials, we get

for (int r = 0; r != rows; ++r) {
    // write a row
}

We could have written this loop as

for (int r = 1; r <= rows; ++r) { 
    // write a row
}

One version counts from 0 and uses != as its comparison; the other counts from 1 and uses <= as its comparison. The number of iterations is the same in each case. Is there any reason to prefer one form over the other?

One reason to count from 0 is that doing so encourages us to use asymmetric ranges to express intervals. For example, it is natural to use the range [0, rows) to describe the first for statement, as it is to use the range [1, rows] to describe the second one.

Asymmetric ranges are usually easier to use than symmetric ones because of an important property: A range of the form [m, n) has n - m elements, and a range of the form [m, n] has n - m + 1 elements. So, for example, the number of elements in [0, rows) is obvious (i.e., rows - 0, or rows) but the number in [1, rows] is less so.

This behavioral difference between asymmetric and symmetric ranges is particularly evident in the case of empty ranges: If we use asymmetric ranges, we can express an empty range as [n, n), in contrast to [n, n-1] for symmetric ranges. The possibility that the end of a range could ever be less than the beginning can cause no end of trouble in designing programs.

Another reason to count from 0 is that doing so makes loop invariants easier to express. In our example, counting from 0 makes the invariant straightforward: We have written r rows of output so far. What would be the invariant if we counted from 1?

One would be tempted to say that the invariant is that we are about to write the rth row, but that statement does not qualify as an invariant. The reason is that the last time the while tests its condition, r is equal to rows + 1, and we intend to write only rows rows. Therefore, we are not about to write the rth row, so the invariant is not true!

Our invariant could be that we have written r - 1 rows so far. However, if that's our invariant, why not simplify it by starting r at 0?

Another reason to count from 0 is that we have the option of using != as our comparison instead of <=. This distinction may seem trivial, but it affects what we know about the state of the program when a loop finishes. For example, if the condition is r != rows, then when the loop finishes, we know that r == rows. Because the invariant says that we have written r rows of output, we know that we have written exactly rows rows all told. On the other hand, if the condition is r <= rows, then all we can prove is that we have written at least rows rows of output. For all we know, we might have written more.

If we count from 0, then we can use r != rows as a condition when we want to ensure that there are exactly rows iterations, or we can use r < rows if we care only that the number of iterations is rows or more. If we count from 1, we can use r <= rows if we want at least rows iterations-but what if we want to ensure that rows is the exact number? Then we must test a more complicated condition, such as r == rows + 1. This extra complexity offers no compensating advantage.

原来是为了方便和不容易出错啊.