[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
- Subject: Re: 'table' as fallback for tables
- From: Henrik Ilgen <henrik.ilgen@...>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 19:59:07 +0200
On 30.06.2016 16:01, Andrew Starks wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 8:23 AM, Roberto Ierusalimschy
> <roberto@inf.puc-rio.br> wrote:
>>> — How should constructors set length? What are the lengths of {}, {1, 2} and {1, 2, [3]=3} ?
>> 0, 2, and 2.
>>
>> -- Roberto
>>
> Yuck. I would not want to be the one to document or defend that behavior.
>
> - Andrew Starks
>
I also wouldn't want to be the one to write the code for the third
table, at least as long as I didn't have *very* good reasons to do so...
But yes, 0, 2 and 3 would make far more sense in this case.
- Henrik Ilgen
- References:
- Re: 'table' as fallback for tables, Jay
- Re: 'table' as fallback for tables, Tim Hill
- Re: 'table' as fallback for tables, Philipp Janda
- Re: 'table' as fallback for tables, Tim Hill
- Re: 'table' as fallback for tables, Adrián Pérez de Castro
- Re: 'table' as fallback for tables, Andrew Starks
- Re: 'table' as fallback for tables, steve donovan
- Re: 'table' as fallback for tables, Coda Highland
- Re: 'table' as fallback for tables, Roberto Ierusalimschy
- Re: 'table' as fallback for tables, Tim Hill
- Re: 'table' as fallback for tables, Roberto Ierusalimschy
- Re: 'table' as fallback for tables, Andrew Starks
