I’ve not tested this, but if ipairs() DOES respect __len() in some way onThe change in ipairs from 5.2 is that __index is respected in 5.3-beta.If __index invokes __len, then __ipairs may depend on __len.
5.3 beta, then imho either the code or the docs are wrong.
Well obviously, and it would depend on math.sin() if it invoked that. The point is that ipairs() in and of itself does not use # or __len(). I also just checked this in the new rc0 beta source. My point for the OP was that ipairs() is therefore no longer equivalent to a for loop that uses #t as an upper limit.