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

[Coda Highland <chighland@...>]

On Wed, Sep 17, 2014 at 3:40 PM, Tim Hill <drtimhill@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sep 17, 2014, at 1:48 PM, Coda Highland <chighland@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'm pretty sure you missed my point. The definition in the 5.2 manual
>> DOES explicitly say that an empty table has a length of 0. It doesn't
>> special-case it, but that IS a consequence of the definition
>> presented. It's not "you can assume it" -- it's "it's guaranteed." The
>> wording isn't ambiguous, just complicated.
>>
>
> Well it is if you assume that "(1..n)" is some sort of math interval (but shouldn’t it use square brackets if its inclusive?). To my mind any document that is a “reference” should be definitive, unambiguous, and clear. I think the definition of # meets the first two criteria, but maybe misses on the last (hence this thread).
>
> —Tim
>

No disagreement here.

/s/ Adam