Re: Why can't I do for...in on a table?

[Chris Marrin <chris@...>]

Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo wrote:
> > In fact, it might have been better to define the iterator syntax like this:
> >
> >     for p = next,t,nil do ... end
> >
> > which looks like the numeric for loop. If the first expression is a 
> > number, you would use numeric iteration. If it is a function, you would 
> > use iterators.
>
>
> The whole point of having two different forms for "for" is to be able to
> generate good code in both cases, specially in the numeric "for". If the
> syntax was the same, the checks would be needed at run time and it wouldn't
> be possible to have special VM instructions for each "for" variant.

True. A separate statement would be better. I guess I was trying to 
speak to the "lua has a tiny little BNF" gods :-)


--
chris marrin                ,""$,
chris@marrin.com          b`    $                             ,,.
                        mP     b'                            , 1$'
        ,.`           ,b`    ,`                              :$$'
     ,|`             mP    ,`                                       ,mm
   ,b"              b"   ,`            ,mm      m$$    ,m         ,`P$$
  m$`             ,b`  .` ,mm        ,'|$P   ,|"1$`  ,b$P       ,`  :$1
 b$`             ,$: :,`` |$$      ,`   $$` ,|` ,$$,,`"$$     .`    :$|
b$|            _m$`,:`    :$1   ,`     ,$Pm|`    `    :$$,..;"'     |$:
P$b,      _;b$$b$1"       |$$ ,`      ,$$"             ``'          $$
 ```"```'"    `"`         `""`        ""`                          ,P`
"As a general rule,don't solve puzzles that open portals to Hell"'