Roll20 uses cookies to improve your experience on our site. Cookies enable you to enjoy certain features, social sharing functionality, and tailor message and display ads to your interests on our site and others. They also help us understand how our site is being used. By continuing to use our site, you consent to our use of cookies. Update your cookie preferences .
×
Create a free account
This post has been closed. You can still view previous posts, but you can't post any new replies.

[Suggestion] Character sheet : possibility to show the repeating section number

1406210886
Natha
KS Backer
Sheet Author
API Scripter
It would be nice to have a possibilty to show the number (0, 1, 2 ...) of repeating section on the character sheet.
+1 With only one or two entries, it's easy to count them up (then subtract one, since they start at zero (who does that?!)) When you've got a dozen entries, things get confusing! -Phnord PS: Not the only issue with repeating sections, but one that I'd still like to see fixed!
1406237430
Lithl
Pro
Sheet Author
API Scripter
Phnord Prephect said: since they start at zero (who does that?!) Programmers. Except the weird ones (ALGOL 68, CFML, COBOL, Fortran, FoxPro, Julia, Lua, Mathematica, MATLAB, PL/I, RPG, Smalltalk, Xpath). And the really weird ones (Haskell, Ada, Pascal, APL).
1406243760
The Aaron
Roll20 Production Team
API Scripter
Programmers start at 0 because it makes the math easier. =D Array notation (originally) is just syntactic sugar for: ArrayAddr[index] == *(ArrayAddr+(index*sizeof(ArrayObject))) So, the index is really an offset into the array. The element at the beginning has an offset of 0. (This is also how overflow bugs generally work!)
1406245133
Lithl
Pro
Sheet Author
API Scripter
Aaron, Fortran is one of the oldest (1957) high-level programming languages (ie, higher-level than assembly, which doesn't have arrays), and it uses 1-indexed arrays. =)
1406246242
The Aaron
Roll20 Production Team
API Scripter
Sure, I'm not saying it's the only way, just that's the why see 0 based indexing. Besides, I guarantee you they have a -1 in there somewhere. :)