“In that case, n is its length (and will thus be zero for an empty sequence)."
Which seems to me to clarify the situation.
If it's helpful, there is nothing wrong with how it is written now. It is fairly debated whether the expectation should be that when someone is reading a technical reference manual, they will read it with care and precision and that more words are often un-better. [1]
I'll stay out of suggesting a specific improvement to any API call or section[2]. I would welcome even more normative text, especially short paragraphs that are near specific api calls, where a small bit of perspective would be broadly useful.
Of course, the role of the Reference Manual is 'reference'. It's not a mini-PiL. But a little clarification has a way of killing threads off before they start. :)
--Andrew
[1] On multiple occasions, I've miss-understood the Lua reference manual. I go back and read it and then see that I got it wrong and am struck with how exacting the wording of the text is. I don't know that this experience is a bad thing, at all.
[2] I think the ones offered are excellent, including Tim's.
