Re: Does PIL (3rd edition) repeatedly misuse the length operator on tables and invoke undefined behavior?

[polyglot@...]

On 2014-09-18 01:02, Coda Highland wrote:
> This set of keys is {}, the empty set. It IS a member of the set of
> sets of the form {1..n}, with n = 0.

"We use the term sequence to denote a table where the set of all 
positive
numeric keys is equal to {1..n} for some integer n, which is called the
length of the sequence (see §3.4.6)."

Taking n = 0 seems pathological to me, even though 0 is indeed an 
integer.
The main problem, however, is that any integer less than 1 produces the
empty set. Try n = -42 with your for loop.

So the length of the sequence wouldn't be uniquely defined. Obviously
0 makes the most sense, but the question is how one gets there from
the manual.