Language principles

[Mike Schilling]

>From article <1990Feb9.181942.24649 at utzoo.uucp>, by henry at utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer):
> In article <CHUCKP.90Feb8095934 at halley.ncr-fc.FtCollins.NCR.com> chuckp at ncr-fc.FtCollins.NCR.com (Chuck Phillips) writes:
>>John>     ZERO-ONE-INFINITY:  The only reasonable numbers are zero, one, and
>>John>        infinity.
>>
>>On most of the points I agree.  However, this restriction seems a bit
>>bizarre...  Could you provide a bit more context to this? ...
> 
> The point of this rule, which goes back a long way, is that an arbitrary
> limit will usually get in the way eventually.  
> ...
> The only good numbers are zero (don't do it
> at all), one (do it but don't let the issue of "how many" come up), and
> infinity (let the user decide how many he wants).
I also remember a suggestion that languages force symbolic names to be used 
for constants other than zero and one, to make it harder to embed magic 
numbers in code.  I think this was Glenford Myers's idea.