Re: of a year, years, and half a year (was Re: (none))

[ok@cs.mu.oz.au (Richard O'Keefe)]

In article <13711@grebyn.com>, karl@grebyn.com (Karl Nyberg) writes:
> In article <2007@munnari.oz.au> ok@cs.mu.oz.au (Richard O'Keefe) writes:
> >If ADA.people get such blatant off-by-one errors in their specs,
> >can their code be any better?  [ponderous humour]

> Ada is spelled thus.  What else don't you know? [imponderous humor]

I know how Ada is spelled.  But ADA.people is my word, and I spell it
how I please.  (ADA is an acronym standing for "Ada Discussion and
Admiration"...)

> According to Webster's New Collegiate, 8th Edition:

> 	decade : 1 : a group or set of 10 ; 2 : a period of 10 years ; ...
> 	millenium : 1 a period of 1000 years ; ...

> No indication on the lower bound.  I'm surprised that C.hackers (of all
> people) wouldn't start with 0-based counting.

If that C.hackers bit is aimed at me, I offer you this quotation for
your .signature:
	The longer I program in C the better I like Ada.  (me)

I would point out that Webster's dictionary does not contain ALL knowledge...
It's not a matter of where *I* start counting.  It's a matter of how our
calendar works.  The Japanese recently started a new calendar:  the first
year in that is Year 1 of whoever.  Lots of calendars work the same way.
The first decade of the present system would have been 1 to 10.

The complexities in human calendar systems are precisely the reason why
computer systems count days or seconds or whatever from an arbitrary
epoch.