Re: table.concat - why so complex?

[Florian Weimer <fw@...>]

* Martijn van Buul:

> My naive solution would be simple: Iterate over the array, add the
> string length of its members, add the required storage for any
> supplied separator, allocate the target string to the right, and
> memcpy() the array members (and any separators) over to their final
> location. Required memory overhead: None.

concat needs to convert numbers to strings.  This requires allocating
new strings (at least with the usual APIs), and those have to be
stored somewhere.