(Message perl/tiefile:352) /home/mjd/bin/mailpager 352 Return-Path: mjd@plover.com Delivery-Date: Fri Apr 04 15:45:54 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: mjd-filter-deliver2@plover.com Received: (qmail 24716 invoked by uid 119); 4 Apr 2003 15:45:54 -0000 Delivered-To: mjd-filter@plover.com Received: (qmail 24690 invoked by uid 119); 4 Apr 2003 15:45:50 -0000 Delivered-To: mjd@plover.com Received: (qmail 24679 invoked by uid 119); 4 Apr 2003 15:45:50 -0000 Message-ID: <20030404154550.24678.qmail@plover.com> To: bug-Tie-File@rt.cpan.org cc: mjd@plover.com Subject: Re: [cpan #2276] POD typo in Tie-File-0.93 In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 24 Mar 2003 09:48:49 EST." Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2003 10:45:50 -0500 From: Mark Jason Dominus > [mjd@plover.com - Sun Mar 23 18:50:36 2003]: > > I guess it depends on whether you think the first line of the file is > > line 0 or line 1. > > Yes, of course. And to me, in plain English (or in my case Swedish...), > the first line of something is line # 1. Maybe it's just me... ;-) You will note that the documentation does not say "display 42nd line of the file". It says "Display line 42 of the file". This was not an accident. The 42nd line of the file is line 41, just as the first line of the file is line 0 and the third line of the file is line 2. Of course, one could argue on philological grounds that "third" must necessarily mean "item #3", regardless of where the numbering starts. But this is undesirable. It would introduce a discontinuity between the cardinal and the ordinal numerals in cases where items are numbered starting with 0, as is common in computer applications, because the ordinal numerals 'first' and 'second' are *not* derived from the cardinal numbers 'one' and 'two'. The first ('principal') item would be #0, the second ('following') item would be #1, and then the third ('number three') item would be #3. Then you would have no way to refer to item #2. If for some reason the iterms were numbered starting with -57, the problem would be even bigger since then there would be no word for items -55 through 2. In any case, it doesn't seem clear that making the change you suggested would lead to a net decrease of confusion in people reading the manual, so I think I probably won't do it. Best regards, -D.