Re: [ANN] Lua 5.3.0 (alpha) now available

[Andrew Starks <andrew.starks@...>]

On Friday, August 1, 2014, Dirk Laurie <dirk.laurie@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2014-08-01 17:15 GMT+02:00 Daurnimator <quae@daurnimator.com>:
> > On 1 August 2014 10:48, Roberto Ierusalimschy <roberto@inf.puc-rio.br>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >  [...] However, I am not delighted
> >> > by an optional argument preceding a non-optional one. [...]
> >>
> >> We do not like it either. Do you suggest any alternative?
> >>
> >> -- Roberto
> >>
> >
> > I see no problem saying making the function signature
> >
> >     table.icopy(from_tbl, from_idx, num_elements, [to_tbl, to_idx])
> >
> > If to_tbl and to_idx ar not given, they default to the empty table and 1.
> > The function always returns to_tbl.
>
> I like this, but why not
>
> table.icopy(from_tbl[, from_idx, num_elements[, to_tbl, to_idx]])
>
> with from_idx, num_elements defaulting to 1,#from_tbl? Then
> sequence cloning is simply
>
> to_tbl = table.icopy(from_tbl)

This is very much about preference, but I like this too. I still like my suggestion (not just cause it's mine) the most:

table.icopy(source, destination, [start_i], [end_i], [target_start])

My reasons are:

The start_i is an index and I'd prefer that the end is expressed the same way, instead of as a quantity.

Target start (a1[t]) is least likely to be set and it somewhat changes the purpose from a copy to a copy-shift.

 

Leaving off the destination seems least likely, and that's why I'd suggest that as second.