Re: Possible bug with the length operator

[Jan Behrens <public@...>]

On Thursday 31 March 2011 17:28:12 Arvid Enbom wrote:
> Hello.
> 
> Run this for some strange results:
> print(#{[1]=1,[2]=1,[4]=1,[8]=1,[16]=1,[32]=1,[64]=1,[128]=1})
> 
> According to the Lua reference manual, the length operator (#) is supposed
> to return the highest consecutive numerical index. This means the above
> code SHOULD return 2, because 3 is nil.
> 
> It returns 128.

See http://www.lua.org/manual/5.1/manual.html#2.5.5

"If the array has "holes" (that is, nil values between other non-nil values), 
then #t can be any of the indices that directly precedes a nil value (that is, 
it may consider any such nil value as the end of the array)."

Returning 128 is within specification (as well as returning 2 would be).


Regards
Jan Behrens