[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
- Subject: Re: Why is implicit and explicit 'nil' treated differently?
- From: Andrew Starks <andrew.starks@...>
- Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2015 09:58:27 -0500
On Monday, April 20, 2015, Dirk Laurie <dirk.laurie@gmail.com> wrote:
2015-04-20 15:24 GMT+02:00 Robert Virding <rvirding@gmail.com>:
> Where does 'none' come from? I cannot find any mention of it in the 5.2
> manual.
It seems to be deduced from C API function names like 'lua_isnone'.
I'm not sure about this, but I think it is correct to say that in the C API, none is off of the end of the stack, which is distinct from the sentinel value, which represents nil and is treated identically to false, except for equality.
- References:
- Varargs efficiency, Soni L.
- Re: Varargs efficiency, Sean Conner
- Re: Varargs efficiency, Soni L.
- Re: Varargs efficiency, Tim Hill
- Re: Varargs efficiency, Soni L.
- Re: Varargs efficiency, Hisham
- Why is implicit and explicit 'nil' treated differently?, tonyp
- Re: Why is implicit and explicit 'nil' treated differently?, Jan Behrens
- Re: Why is implicit and explicit 'nil' treated differently?, Andrew Starks
- Re: Why is implicit and explicit 'nil' treated differently?, Robert Virding
- Re: Why is implicit and explicit 'nil' treated differently?, Dirk Laurie
