Is that forwards first or backwards first? (Re: unintuitive for-loop behavior)

[BartC]

On 03/10/2016 16:03, breamoreboy at gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 12:53:55 PM UTC+1, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
>> Gregory Ewing:
>>
>>> Turns out the only difference between first and reverse on that model
>>> is whether you lift up a little ring on the shaft of the gear lever
>>> prior to engagement.
>>>
>>> Who came up with *that* brilliant piece of user interface design I
>>> don't know. It seems specifically designed to encourage velocity sign
>>> errors when starting off...
>>
>> Well, it could be worse. This layout is pretty traditional:
>>
>>     1  3  5
>>     |  |  |
>>     +--+--+
>>     |  |  |
>>     2  4  R

>
> There was the shift on the steering column on the 2CV, but then there's also this.
>
> <very old joke>
> Traditional Italian military vehicle layout.
>
>      1  3  5
>      |  |  |
>      +--+--+
>      |  |  |
>      2  4  F
>
> </very old joke>

I don't get it. Shouldn't it be:

       R  R  R
       |  |  |
       +--+--+
       |  |  |
       R  R  R

?

-- 
Bartc

(It's OK, I'm Italian...)