Why doesn't the new hat-operator index from the C# 8 array-slicing feature start at 0?












70














C# 8.0 introduces a convenient way to slice arrays - see official C# 8.0 blogpost.



The syntax to access the last element of an array is



int value = { 10, 11, 12, 13 };



int a = value[^1]; // 13

int b = value[^2]; // 12


I'm wondering why the indexing for accessing the elements backwards starts at 1 instead of 0? Is there a technical reason for this?






c# arrays c#-8.0







share|improve this question




















  • 6




    Note that C++ ranges are also [beginInclusive, endExclusive). It is a common convention.
    – bommelding
    23 hours ago








  • 2




    @Sinatr: Based on that blog post, the syntax to return everything would be value[0..^0], since the ending index is exclusive (which is how most other languages work, too). Also, conveniently, value[^i..^0] will give you the last i items.
    – BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft
    18 hours ago










  • @bommelding: C++ rbegin() somewhat disagrees with that notion -- the first item out of that range isn't the one-beyond-the-end either. ;-)
    – DevSolar
    26 mins ago
















70














C# 8.0 introduces a convenient way to slice arrays - see official C# 8.0 blogpost.



The syntax to access the last element of an array is



int value = { 10, 11, 12, 13 };



int a = value[^1]; // 13

int b = value[^2]; // 12


I'm wondering why the indexing for accessing the elements backwards starts at 1 instead of 0? Is there a technical reason for this?






c# arrays c#-8.0







share|improve this question




















  • 6




    Note that C++ ranges are also [beginInclusive, endExclusive). It is a common convention.
    – bommelding
    23 hours ago








  • 2




    @Sinatr: Based on that blog post, the syntax to return everything would be value[0..^0], since the ending index is exclusive (which is how most other languages work, too). Also, conveniently, value[^i..^0] will give you the last i items.
    – BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft
    18 hours ago










  • @bommelding: C++ rbegin() somewhat disagrees with that notion -- the first item out of that range isn't the one-beyond-the-end either. ;-)
    – DevSolar
    26 mins ago














70












70








70


11





C# 8.0 introduces a convenient way to slice arrays - see official C# 8.0 blogpost.



The syntax to access the last element of an array is



int value = { 10, 11, 12, 13 };



int a = value[^1]; // 13

int b = value[^2]; // 12


I'm wondering why the indexing for accessing the elements backwards starts at 1 instead of 0? Is there a technical reason for this?






c# arrays c#-8.0







share|improve this question















C# 8.0 introduces a convenient way to slice arrays - see official C# 8.0 blogpost.



The syntax to access the last element of an array is



int value = { 10, 11, 12, 13 };



int a = value[^1]; // 13

int b = value[^2]; // 12


I'm wondering why the indexing for accessing the elements backwards starts at 1 instead of 0? Is there a technical reason for this?






c# arrays c#-8.0




c# arrays c#-8.0






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 4 hours ago









Martin Zikmund

23.4k43460




23.4k43460










asked 23 hours ago









Michael PittinoMichael Pittino

4251614




4251614








  • 6




    Note that C++ ranges are also [beginInclusive, endExclusive). It is a common convention.
    – bommelding
    23 hours ago








  • 2




    @Sinatr: Based on that blog post, the syntax to return everything would be value[0..^0], since the ending index is exclusive (which is how most other languages work, too). Also, conveniently, value[^i..^0] will give you the last i items.
    – BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft
    18 hours ago










  • @bommelding: C++ rbegin() somewhat disagrees with that notion -- the first item out of that range isn't the one-beyond-the-end either. ;-)
    – DevSolar
    26 mins ago














  • 6




    Note that C++ ranges are also [beginInclusive, endExclusive). It is a common convention.
    – bommelding
    23 hours ago








  • 2




    @Sinatr: Based on that blog post, the syntax to return everything would be value[0..^0], since the ending index is exclusive (which is how most other languages work, too). Also, conveniently, value[^i..^0] will give you the last i items.
    – BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft
    18 hours ago










  • @bommelding: C++ rbegin() somewhat disagrees with that notion -- the first item out of that range isn't the one-beyond-the-end either. ;-)
    – DevSolar
    26 mins ago








6




6




Note that C++ ranges are also [beginInclusive, endExclusive). It is a common convention.
– bommelding
23 hours ago






Note that C++ ranges are also [beginInclusive, endExclusive). It is a common convention.
– bommelding
23 hours ago






2




2




@Sinatr: Based on that blog post, the syntax to return everything would be value[0..^0], since the ending index is exclusive (which is how most other languages work, too). Also, conveniently, value[^i..^0] will give you the last i items.
– BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft
18 hours ago




@Sinatr: Based on that blog post, the syntax to return everything would be value[0..^0], since the ending index is exclusive (which is how most other languages work, too). Also, conveniently, value[^i..^0] will give you the last i items.
– BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft
18 hours ago












@bommelding: C++ rbegin() somewhat disagrees with that notion -- the first item out of that range isn't the one-beyond-the-end either. ;-)
– DevSolar
26 mins ago




@bommelding: C++ rbegin() somewhat disagrees with that notion -- the first item out of that range isn't the one-beyond-the-end either. ;-)
– DevSolar
26 mins ago












1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















95














Official answer



For better visibility, here is a comment from Mads Torgersen explaining this design decision from the C# 8 blogpost:




We decided to follow Python when it comes to the from-beginning and from-end arithmetic. 0 designates the first element (as always), and ^0 the “length’th” element, i.e. the one right off the end. That way you get a simple relationship, where an elements position from beginning plus its position from end equals the length. the x in ^x is what you would have subtracted from the length if you’d done the math yourself.



Why not use minus (-) instead of the new hat (^) operator? This primarily has to do with ranges. Again in keeping with Python and most of the industry, we want our ranges to be inclusive at the beginning, exclusive at the end. What is the index you pass to say that a range should go all the way to the end? In C# the answer is simple: x..^0 goes from x to the end. In Python there is no explicit index you can give: -0 doesn’t work, because it is equal to 0, the first element! So in Python you have to leave the end index off completely to express a range that goes to the end: x... If the end of the range is computed, then you need to remember to have special logic in case it comes out to 0. As in x..-y, where y was computed and came out to 0. This is a common nuisance and source of bugs.



Finally, note that indices and ranges are first class types in .NET/C#. Their behavior is not tied to what they are applied to, or even to being used in an indexer. You can totally define your own indexer that takes Index and another one that takes Range – and we’re going to add such indexers to e.g. Span. But you can also have methods that take ranges, for instance.




My answer



I think this is to match the classic syntax we are used to:



value[^1] == value[value.Length - 1]


If it used 0, it would be confusing when the two syntaxes were used side-by-side. This way it has lower cognitive load.



Other languages like Python also use the same convention.






share|improve this answer



















  • 8




    Minor correction to Mads comment: you do not have to leave off the end index completely in python. You can use None in place of a number: [0,1,2,3,4][2:None] == [2,3,4]. But, yes you cannot use an integer as end index (without computing the length obviously).
    – Giacomo Alzetta
    20 hours ago








  • 4




    Wait.. what's wrong with x..? That seems fine and I've never had problem with the python [3:] syntax.
    – mowwwalker
    15 hours ago






  • 2




    @mowwwalker nothing wrong. I seems that x.. syntax will be supported too. It's in example of ranges proposal
    – Mariusz Pawelski
    12 hours ago








  • 1




    @mowwwalker - isn't that already covered in the quote? "So in Python ... If the end of the range is computed, then you need to remember to have special logic in case it comes out to 0"
    – Damien_The_Unbeliever
    4 hours ago











Your Answer






StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f54092458%2fwhy-doesnt-the-new-hat-operator-index-from-the-c-sharp-8-array-slicing-feature%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









95














Official answer



For better visibility, here is a comment from Mads Torgersen explaining this design decision from the C# 8 blogpost:




We decided to follow Python when it comes to the from-beginning and from-end arithmetic. 0 designates the first element (as always), and ^0 the “length’th” element, i.e. the one right off the end. That way you get a simple relationship, where an elements position from beginning plus its position from end equals the length. the x in ^x is what you would have subtracted from the length if you’d done the math yourself.



Why not use minus (-) instead of the new hat (^) operator? This primarily has to do with ranges. Again in keeping with Python and most of the industry, we want our ranges to be inclusive at the beginning, exclusive at the end. What is the index you pass to say that a range should go all the way to the end? In C# the answer is simple: x..^0 goes from x to the end. In Python there is no explicit index you can give: -0 doesn’t work, because it is equal to 0, the first element! So in Python you have to leave the end index off completely to express a range that goes to the end: x... If the end of the range is computed, then you need to remember to have special logic in case it comes out to 0. As in x..-y, where y was computed and came out to 0. This is a common nuisance and source of bugs.



Finally, note that indices and ranges are first class types in .NET/C#. Their behavior is not tied to what they are applied to, or even to being used in an indexer. You can totally define your own indexer that takes Index and another one that takes Range – and we’re going to add such indexers to e.g. Span. But you can also have methods that take ranges, for instance.




My answer



I think this is to match the classic syntax we are used to:



value[^1] == value[value.Length - 1]


If it used 0, it would be confusing when the two syntaxes were used side-by-side. This way it has lower cognitive load.



Other languages like Python also use the same convention.






share|improve this answer



















  • 8




    Minor correction to Mads comment: you do not have to leave off the end index completely in python. You can use None in place of a number: [0,1,2,3,4][2:None] == [2,3,4]. But, yes you cannot use an integer as end index (without computing the length obviously).
    – Giacomo Alzetta
    20 hours ago








  • 4




    Wait.. what's wrong with x..? That seems fine and I've never had problem with the python [3:] syntax.
    – mowwwalker
    15 hours ago






  • 2




    @mowwwalker nothing wrong. I seems that x.. syntax will be supported too. It's in example of ranges proposal
    – Mariusz Pawelski
    12 hours ago








  • 1




    @mowwwalker - isn't that already covered in the quote? "So in Python ... If the end of the range is computed, then you need to remember to have special logic in case it comes out to 0"
    – Damien_The_Unbeliever
    4 hours ago
















95














Official answer



For better visibility, here is a comment from Mads Torgersen explaining this design decision from the C# 8 blogpost:




We decided to follow Python when it comes to the from-beginning and from-end arithmetic. 0 designates the first element (as always), and ^0 the “length’th” element, i.e. the one right off the end. That way you get a simple relationship, where an elements position from beginning plus its position from end equals the length. the x in ^x is what you would have subtracted from the length if you’d done the math yourself.



Why not use minus (-) instead of the new hat (^) operator? This primarily has to do with ranges. Again in keeping with Python and most of the industry, we want our ranges to be inclusive at the beginning, exclusive at the end. What is the index you pass to say that a range should go all the way to the end? In C# the answer is simple: x..^0 goes from x to the end. In Python there is no explicit index you can give: -0 doesn’t work, because it is equal to 0, the first element! So in Python you have to leave the end index off completely to express a range that goes to the end: x... If the end of the range is computed, then you need to remember to have special logic in case it comes out to 0. As in x..-y, where y was computed and came out to 0. This is a common nuisance and source of bugs.



Finally, note that indices and ranges are first class types in .NET/C#. Their behavior is not tied to what they are applied to, or even to being used in an indexer. You can totally define your own indexer that takes Index and another one that takes Range – and we’re going to add such indexers to e.g. Span. But you can also have methods that take ranges, for instance.




My answer



I think this is to match the classic syntax we are used to:



value[^1] == value[value.Length - 1]


If it used 0, it would be confusing when the two syntaxes were used side-by-side. This way it has lower cognitive load.



Other languages like Python also use the same convention.






share|improve this answer



















  • 8




    Minor correction to Mads comment: you do not have to leave off the end index completely in python. You can use None in place of a number: [0,1,2,3,4][2:None] == [2,3,4]. But, yes you cannot use an integer as end index (without computing the length obviously).
    – Giacomo Alzetta
    20 hours ago








  • 4




    Wait.. what's wrong with x..? That seems fine and I've never had problem with the python [3:] syntax.
    – mowwwalker
    15 hours ago






  • 2




    @mowwwalker nothing wrong. I seems that x.. syntax will be supported too. It's in example of ranges proposal
    – Mariusz Pawelski
    12 hours ago








  • 1




    @mowwwalker - isn't that already covered in the quote? "So in Python ... If the end of the range is computed, then you need to remember to have special logic in case it comes out to 0"
    – Damien_The_Unbeliever
    4 hours ago














95












95








95






Official answer



For better visibility, here is a comment from Mads Torgersen explaining this design decision from the C# 8 blogpost:




We decided to follow Python when it comes to the from-beginning and from-end arithmetic. 0 designates the first element (as always), and ^0 the “length’th” element, i.e. the one right off the end. That way you get a simple relationship, where an elements position from beginning plus its position from end equals the length. the x in ^x is what you would have subtracted from the length if you’d done the math yourself.



Why not use minus (-) instead of the new hat (^) operator? This primarily has to do with ranges. Again in keeping with Python and most of the industry, we want our ranges to be inclusive at the beginning, exclusive at the end. What is the index you pass to say that a range should go all the way to the end? In C# the answer is simple: x..^0 goes from x to the end. In Python there is no explicit index you can give: -0 doesn’t work, because it is equal to 0, the first element! So in Python you have to leave the end index off completely to express a range that goes to the end: x... If the end of the range is computed, then you need to remember to have special logic in case it comes out to 0. As in x..-y, where y was computed and came out to 0. This is a common nuisance and source of bugs.



Finally, note that indices and ranges are first class types in .NET/C#. Their behavior is not tied to what they are applied to, or even to being used in an indexer. You can totally define your own indexer that takes Index and another one that takes Range – and we’re going to add such indexers to e.g. Span. But you can also have methods that take ranges, for instance.




My answer



I think this is to match the classic syntax we are used to:



value[^1] == value[value.Length - 1]


If it used 0, it would be confusing when the two syntaxes were used side-by-side. This way it has lower cognitive load.



Other languages like Python also use the same convention.






share|improve this answer














Official answer



For better visibility, here is a comment from Mads Torgersen explaining this design decision from the C# 8 blogpost:




We decided to follow Python when it comes to the from-beginning and from-end arithmetic. 0 designates the first element (as always), and ^0 the “length’th” element, i.e. the one right off the end. That way you get a simple relationship, where an elements position from beginning plus its position from end equals the length. the x in ^x is what you would have subtracted from the length if you’d done the math yourself.



Why not use minus (-) instead of the new hat (^) operator? This primarily has to do with ranges. Again in keeping with Python and most of the industry, we want our ranges to be inclusive at the beginning, exclusive at the end. What is the index you pass to say that a range should go all the way to the end? In C# the answer is simple: x..^0 goes from x to the end. In Python there is no explicit index you can give: -0 doesn’t work, because it is equal to 0, the first element! So in Python you have to leave the end index off completely to express a range that goes to the end: x... If the end of the range is computed, then you need to remember to have special logic in case it comes out to 0. As in x..-y, where y was computed and came out to 0. This is a common nuisance and source of bugs.



Finally, note that indices and ranges are first class types in .NET/C#. Their behavior is not tied to what they are applied to, or even to being used in an indexer. You can totally define your own indexer that takes Index and another one that takes Range – and we’re going to add such indexers to e.g. Span. But you can also have methods that take ranges, for instance.




My answer



I think this is to match the classic syntax we are used to:



value[^1] == value[value.Length - 1]


If it used 0, it would be confusing when the two syntaxes were used side-by-side. This way it has lower cognitive load.



Other languages like Python also use the same convention.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited 4 hours ago

























answered 23 hours ago









Martin ZikmundMartin Zikmund

23.4k43460




23.4k43460








  • 8




    Minor correction to Mads comment: you do not have to leave off the end index completely in python. You can use None in place of a number: [0,1,2,3,4][2:None] == [2,3,4]. But, yes you cannot use an integer as end index (without computing the length obviously).
    – Giacomo Alzetta
    20 hours ago








  • 4




    Wait.. what's wrong with x..? That seems fine and I've never had problem with the python [3:] syntax.
    – mowwwalker
    15 hours ago






  • 2




    @mowwwalker nothing wrong. I seems that x.. syntax will be supported too. It's in example of ranges proposal
    – Mariusz Pawelski
    12 hours ago








  • 1




    @mowwwalker - isn't that already covered in the quote? "So in Python ... If the end of the range is computed, then you need to remember to have special logic in case it comes out to 0"
    – Damien_The_Unbeliever
    4 hours ago














  • 8




    Minor correction to Mads comment: you do not have to leave off the end index completely in python. You can use None in place of a number: [0,1,2,3,4][2:None] == [2,3,4]. But, yes you cannot use an integer as end index (without computing the length obviously).
    – Giacomo Alzetta
    20 hours ago








  • 4




    Wait.. what's wrong with x..? That seems fine and I've never had problem with the python [3:] syntax.
    – mowwwalker
    15 hours ago






  • 2




    @mowwwalker nothing wrong. I seems that x.. syntax will be supported too. It's in example of ranges proposal
    – Mariusz Pawelski
    12 hours ago








  • 1




    @mowwwalker - isn't that already covered in the quote? "So in Python ... If the end of the range is computed, then you need to remember to have special logic in case it comes out to 0"
    – Damien_The_Unbeliever
    4 hours ago








8




8




Minor correction to Mads comment: you do not have to leave off the end index completely in python. You can use None in place of a number: [0,1,2,3,4][2:None] == [2,3,4]. But, yes you cannot use an integer as end index (without computing the length obviously).
– Giacomo Alzetta
20 hours ago






Minor correction to Mads comment: you do not have to leave off the end index completely in python. You can use None in place of a number: [0,1,2,3,4][2:None] == [2,3,4]. But, yes you cannot use an integer as end index (without computing the length obviously).
– Giacomo Alzetta
20 hours ago






4




4




Wait.. what's wrong with x..? That seems fine and I've never had problem with the python [3:] syntax.
– mowwwalker
15 hours ago




Wait.. what's wrong with x..? That seems fine and I've never had problem with the python [3:] syntax.
– mowwwalker
15 hours ago




2




2




@mowwwalker nothing wrong. I seems that x.. syntax will be supported too. It's in example of ranges proposal
– Mariusz Pawelski
12 hours ago






@mowwwalker nothing wrong. I seems that x.. syntax will be supported too. It's in example of ranges proposal
– Mariusz Pawelski
12 hours ago






1




1




@mowwwalker - isn't that already covered in the quote? "So in Python ... If the end of the range is computed, then you need to remember to have special logic in case it comes out to 0"
– Damien_The_Unbeliever
4 hours ago




@mowwwalker - isn't that already covered in the quote? "So in Python ... If the end of the range is computed, then you need to remember to have special logic in case it comes out to 0"
– Damien_The_Unbeliever
4 hours ago


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f54092458%2fwhy-doesnt-the-new-hat-operator-index-from-the-c-sharp-8-array-slicing-feature%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







-

Popular posts from this blog

Liste der Baudenkmale in Friedland (Mecklenburg)

Image
In der Liste der Baudenkmale in Friedland sind alle denkmalgeschützten Bauten der Stadt Friedland (Mecklenburg-Vorpommern) und ihrer Ortsteile aufgelistet. Grundlage ist die Veröffentlichung der Denkmalliste des Landkreises Mecklenburgische Seenplatte (Auszug) vom 28. September 2016. Inhaltsverzeichnis 1 Baudenkmale nach Ortsteilen 1.1 Friedland 1.2 Bresewitz 1.3 Brohm 1.4 Cosa 1.5 Dishley 1.6 Dishley-Ausbau 1.7 Eichhorst 1.8 Glienke 1.9 Heinrichshöh 1.10 Heinrichswalde 1.11 Jatzke 1.12 Jatzke-Meierei 1.13 Liepen 1.14 Ramelow 1.15 Schwanbeck 2 Vorgesehener Denkmalbereich 3 Quelle 4 Weblinks Baudenkmale nach Ortsteilen | Friedland | ID Lage Bezeichnung Beschreibung Bild 281 An der Kleinbahn 2 Windmühle mit Umgang 282 Anklamer Straße alter Friedhof mit Portalwand 282 Anklamer Straße drei Erbbegräbnissen und Gräbern u. a. H.A. Riemann 284
Read more

Single-Malt-Whisky

Image
Fünf verschiedene schottische Single-Malt-Whiskys Als Single-Malt-Whisky oder kürzer Single Malt werden Whiskys bezeichnet, die zwei besondere Bedingungen erfüllen: Sie stammen zum ersten aus einer einzigen Brennerei, sind also kein Verschnitt aus mehreren Whiskysorten (daher Single , deutsch: einzeln). Zum zweiten wird als Getreide ausschließlich gemälzte Gerste verwendet (deswegen Malt , deutsch: Malz). Der Zusatz Single Malt wird als Prädikat verstanden, die so ausgezeichneten Whiskys sind in aller Regel besonders hochwertig. Hinzu kommt ihre besonders lange Lagerung, die Reifungszeit währt oft ein Jahrzehnt und länger. Inhaltsverzeichnis 1 Allgemeines 2 Herkunftsländer 2.1 Schottland 2.2 Irland 2.3 Japan 2.4 Kontinentaleuropa 3 Produktionsschritte 3.1 Mälzen 3.2 Brauen 3.3 Brennen 3.4 Reifung und Finish 3.5 Abfüllung 4 Altersangaben 5 Lagerung von Whiskyflaschen 6 Geschmacksklassifikation 7 Sonstig
Read more

Czorneboh

Image
Dieser Artikel erläutert den Berg Czorneboh, für die Gottheit siehe Czorneboh (Gottheit). Czorneboh Čornobóh Berggasthof mit Turm Höhe 555,7  m ü. NHN [1] Lage Freistaat Sachsen, Deutschland Gebirge Lausitzer Bergland Dominanz 15,4 km →  Kottmar Koordinaten 51° 7′ 11″  N , 14° 31′ 31″  O 51.119722222222 14.525194444444 555.7 Koordinaten: 51° 7′ 11″  N , 14° 31′ 31″  O Gestein Granodiorit Besonderheiten Aussichtsturm Czorneboh Der Czorneboh , obersorbisch Čornobóh , ist ein Berg zwischen Hochkirch und Cunewalde in der Oberlausitz. Er gehört zu der südöstlich von Bautzen gelegenen Czorneboh-Bergkette und ist mit einer Höhe von 555,7  m ü. NHN [1] der höchste Punkt dieses Ausläufers des Lausitzer Berglandes. Er leitet als Landschaftselement die wellige Granitlandschaft der Lausitzer Vorbergzone ein. Der Gipfel des Czorneboh liegt in der Gemarkung Meschwitz (Gemeinde Hochkirch), die Czornebohbaude jedoch
Read more