Re: table.pack()

[Tomas Guisasola Gorham <tomas@...>]

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010, Renato Maia wrote:
> I agree with Patrick here. However I'd go a little further and vote for no 
> 'table.pack' at all. I agree it is useful in some cases and people write 
> something like that often (as does 'string.split', 'table.append', 
> 'table.copy', ...). But I don't believe there is one-version-fits-all to make 
> it into a standard library. Furthermore, the asymmetry with 'table.unpack' 
> [1] and bringing back the 'n' field policy does not look like the best choice 
> either. Personally, I'd rather see 'apairs' [2] becoming standard.
	I don't think voting would ever change anything, but I agree
with you and Patrick!  And also regarding the standardization of 'bit' :-)
		Tomás