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

[Philipp Janda <siffiejoe@...>]

Am 06.10.2013 10:00 schröbte Tim Hill:
> On Oct 6, 2013, at 12:03 AM, David Heiko Kolf <david@dkolf.de> wrote:
>
> > Dirk Laurie wrote:
> > > Cheap alternative: Fixed-length table. Length defined once for all. Larger
> > > indices treated as non-numeric. This may actually cover quite a large
> > > number of actual use cases
>
> @Dirk: "Larger indices treated as non-numeric?" What do you mean?

I think he means that once a table has a length `n`, even putting a 
value at `n+1` (or higher) won't change that length.

> And in either case, you would still have O(n) performance hot, which Roberto apparently feels is unacceptable.

Apparently, he is not the only one: 90% of this thread is about how 
`O(n)` is not efficient enough for verifying a sequence in a table ...

> --Tim

Philipp