[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: tables
- From: "D Burgess" <dburgess@...>
- Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 10:05:41 +1100
It would seem that we have the "never assigned nil" and
the "assigned nil".
On 3/6/06, Chris <email@example.com> wrote:
> > What I find interesting is that an explicitly set nil value is not
> considered a "hole" in the table.
> > According to the documentation that shouldn't be. A bug?
> By the way, I find the documentation wording very confusing:
> The length of a table t is defined to be any integer index n such that t[n]
> is not nil and t[n+1] is nil; moreover, if t is nil, n ***may*** be zero.
> For a regular array, with non-nil values from 1 to a given n, its length is
> exactly that n, the index of its last value. If the array has "holes" (that
> is, nil values between other non-nil values), then #t ***may*** be any of
> the indices that directly precedes a nil value (that is, it ***may***
> consider any such nil value as the end of the array).
> It _might_ consider a nil the end? Well, does it or does it not? And if
> it can change I think that needs to be made clear.
> // Chris