[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
- Subject: Re: pairs(t, skey) and ipairs(t, skey)
- From: Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo <lhf@...>
- Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 14:51:21 -0300
> but.... that 'array part' is just an optimization
That's a crucial point that seems to be frequently lost: The 'array
part' does not need to store all values at keys 1..#t, even if t is a
proper sequence. Part of the sequence may be in the 'hash part'. So,
t->sizearray is not directly related to #t.
- References:
- Re: pairs(t, skey) and ipairs(t, skey), Dirk Laurie
- Re: pairs(t, skey) and ipairs(t, skey), Paul K
- Re: pairs(t, skey) and ipairs(t, skey), Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo
- Re: pairs(t, skey) and ipairs(t, skey), Tim Hill
- Re: pairs(t, skey) and ipairs(t, skey), Luiz Henrique de Figueiredo
- Re: pairs(t, skey) and ipairs(t, skey), steve donovan
- Re: pairs(t, skey) and ipairs(t, skey), Paul K
- Re: pairs(t, skey) and ipairs(t, skey), Javier Guerra Giraldez