Re: [Challenge] Smallest table copy

["Thiago L." <fakedme@...>]

On 07/05/2014 12:46, Philipp Janda wrote:
> Am 07.05.2014 17:13 schröbte Thiago L.:
> > On 07/05/2014 12:00, Philipp Janda wrote:
> > > Am 07.05.2014 15:40 schröbte Thiago L.:
> > > > So I have a challenge for you all: A table copy script in less than 
> > > > 270
> > > > chars
> > >
> > > 239 bytes. Stole some of your tricks. Not extensively tested but seems
> > > to work ...
> > >
> > > Philipp
> > Uhh it doesn't handle replacing _G.pairs with nil...
>
> That is true. Of course you could add a local one-letter alias for 
> `pairs` at the cost of 4 extra characters. While you are at it, 
> replace `pairs(a)` with `next,a ` which saves another byte. So it's 
> about 242 bytes now.
>
> > Also I don't like that wrapper function nonsense...
> > (table.copy.shallow(t,1) etc... bugs and obfuscation...)
>
> There are no wrapper functions. I just used one function to implement 
> the other via an extra boolean parameter (which you suggested in your 
> OP, btw.).
What I talked about was deep KEY copy...
So for a table where t[x]=y where x is a table, you could make it keep x 
as it is or copy it by setting a boolean...
> Both versions can't handle extra arguments correctly (my `shallow`, 
> your `deep`), and both are properly obfuscated. I optimized 
> specifically for code size which I thought was the challenge 
> (obviously I misunderstood) ...
>
> Of course, I wouldn't write nor use either version under normal 
> circumstances.
>
> Philipp