Re: [ANN] Lua 5.2.0 (work3) now available

[Shmuel Zeigerman <shmuz@...>]

David Kastrup wrote:
> > The point is that it does exactly the same that a numeric loop, so
> > there was no point in keeping it.
>
> If both do exactly the same, the logical thing to keep would be ipairs,
> not the numeric loop.  Simplifies the language.  _And_ you can pass
> ipairs around, as a function argument, as a data structure element,
> whenever the receiver needs any old iterator.  You can't pass a "numeric
> loop" around other than wrapping it into a closure.

I'd like ipairs to stay. Otherwise most of my code will be polluted with 
an additional line, e.g.
  for k = 1, #arr do
    local v = arr[k] -- this wasn't needed with ipairs
    ......
  end

--
Shmuel