Re: tables

["D Burgess" <dburgess@...>]

It would seem that we have the "never assigned nil" and
the "assigned nil".

David B

On 3/6/06, Chris <coderight@gmail.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[1] 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
>