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

[breamoreboy at gmail.com]

On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 5:41:23 PM UTC+1, BartC wrote:
> On 03/10/2016 16:03, 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...)

A very poor design, what happens if the enemy attack from the rear? :)