Re: Why no __usedindex?

[Axel Kittenberger <axkibe@...>]

> it would add a perceptible overhead to _every_ table assignment,
> without making possible anything you can't do with proxy tables.

You can't do everything with proxy tables, there are subtle
differences, e.g. i/pairs() before 5.2, next() calls event there, etc.
Also proxy tables are a hugh overhead for those who need it!

it is a repeated critique/suggestion.

While I do share the worries not to make every table slower, all it
needs would be a bit flag for a table "has used indices" for its meta
or "hasn't". And quering one bit really is close to nothing compared
to the whole fluff of a table access. As far as I remember, there is
an now in 5.2 there is an unused bit in the tables bitmasks..