Re: t[ nil ]

[roberto@... (Roberto Ierusalimschy)]

> I guess this is the old problem with language definition vs.
> implementation behaviour. There's no alternative implementation
> of Lua 5.x, so there was never a need for a clear separation.

The absence of an alternative implementation is no excuse for a
poor definition. We consider a bug whenever the implementation does
not follow the manual. (Although the manual may left things undefined
intentionally).

In this particular case, the intended behavior is that t[nil] results in
nil and that the assignment to t[nil] is an error.

-- Roberto