Re: Proposal for table length operator

[Dirk Laurie <dpl@...>]

On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 06:03:00AM +0200, Keith Matthews wrote:
> Given a table t, #t would be defined by those two rules:
> 
> 1 - #t is the highest positive integer index to which a value was
> assigned in t (including nil)
> 
> 2 - table.remove(t, i) decrements #t by 1 if i <= #t.
> 
I'd prefer just Rule 1.  That's the ideal way to implement sparse vectors.
-- sparse vector of length 1000
a={}; a[3]=3; a[6]=7; a[101]=101; a[1000]=nil

But now table.remove(a,3) makes #a=999?  What sort of logic is that?

Dirk