Re: get/settable vs rawget/set

["Adam D. Moss" <adam@...>]

Tim Conkling wrote:
> What about when I'm using the C API and calling the table functions from 
> the host program?
>
> On Oct 1, 2003, at 12:12 PM, Adam D. Moss wrote:
>
> > Tim Conkling wrote:
> >
> > > If I know that a given table will never have a metatable associated 
> > > with it, is there a significant speed advantage to calling the "raw" 
> > > table functions rather than gettable and settable?
> >
> >
> > No... in fact I believe that rawget/rawset are actually slower
> > in practice because they incur a function call overhead; 'normal'
> > get/set have their own specialized vm opcodes.

Good question.  I don't know -- you could time is and see...

--Adam
--
Adam D. Moss   . ,,^^   adam@gimp.org   http://www.foxbox.org/   co:3