Re: __pairs isn't what we need

[Alexander Gladysh <agladysh@...>]

<...>

> ipairs has a similar issue at face value (with it's hidden "inext"
> iterator); but I propose we make it respect __len.
> alternativly, I argue for the removal of ipairs alltogether: it's
> functionality can be replicaed with a number for - and you can always make
> your own ipairs function:

<...>

Actually this makes sense. Now that ipairs hole-handling behaviour
does match the table length operator, there are no reasons left in
keeping ipairs in the API.

Whole array- vs. hash-part situation in Lua is confusing for newbies.
I think, it would probably be a bit clearer if we leave only two
*distinct* ways to iterate the table. I've seen too often bugs where
ipairs is used inplace of pairs and vice-versa.

Alexander.