Re: pairs(t, skey) and ipairs(t, skey)

[Sean Conner <sean@...>]

It was thus said that the Great Tim Hill once stated:
> 
> First, it's a bit odd to have to work-around the # operator like this
> (witness the number of times this comes up in this forum). Second, I'm not
> sure why you take such issue with my suggested language change .. what is
> actually wrong with it?
> 
> Present behavior:
> With a sequence: # returns valid length
> Without a sequence: # returns arbitrary integer value that is easy to mistake for a length
> 
> Suggested behavior:
> With a sequence: # returns valid length
> Without a sequence: # returns nil
> 
> Why is the suggested behavior bad?

  I misunderstood the suggestion to also include support for nils in a
sequence.  I apologize for any confusion on my part.

  -spc