Re: 'table' as fallback for tables

["Soni L." <fakedme@...>]

On 25/06/16 08:17 PM, Tim Hill wrote:
> > On Jun 25, 2016, at 3:15 PM, Philipp Janda <siffiejoe@gmx.net 
> > <mailto:siffiejoe@gmx.net>> wrote:
> >
> > > > Ignoring syntax and compatibility issues for a moment, what would 
> > > > you have
> > > > if a table had an explicit, unambiguous, first-class array length?
> > > >
> > > > — No confusion over the meaning/behavior of ipairs().
> >
> > What about `ipairs()` is confusing? It's just like with C strings: 
> > the first `NUL`/`nil` terminates the thing. Normal Lua tables on the 
> > other hand are like Pascal strings that only remember their 
> > capacities, not their sizes, so you have to find the (or a) 
> > terminating `nil` anyway.
>
> It’s confusing when # does one thing and ipairs() does another. If you 
> recall the debate over changes to ipairs() prior to Lua 5.3 (and the 
> changes it underwent during the betas) than yes, I think it can be 
> called confusing. Remember that as a scripting language Lua often has 
> programmers who have far less software knowledge than a seasoned C/C++ 
> veteran, and so the language really needs to be as consistent as 
> possible (imho).
Next up, we should try to get smart quote support, so users can edit 
scripts in notepad.exe and the mac/OSX/whatever it's called nowadays 
text editor without them breaking. /s
> And you only have to look at the number of times the whole issue with 
> sequences/#/nil comes up in this mailing list.
>
> —Tim

--
Disclaimer: these emails may be made public at any given time, with or without reason. If you don't agree with this, DO NOT REPLY.