Re: [Feature Request?] __key

[Sean Conner <sean@...>]

It was thus said that the Great Soni L. once stated:
> 
> >As I and others have noted, the functionality needed by the OP can be 
> >done by interning, or by the appropriate use of metatables.
> 
> With returning plain integers (for interoperability with plain Lua keys) 
> I'd have to use bigint.add(bigint(1), bigint(2)) instead of bigint(1) + 
> bigint(2), which makes it literally impossible to write code that works 
> with both bigints and plain numbers.

  I would like to see the code you have, right now, that does not work
because of this issue.  What *actual problem* are you trying to solve that
the lack of __key is preventing you from continuing further.  

  No, I don't want "it would be nice to have this feature".  I want the
actual code that is currently failing for you, right now.  What is the
actual issue?  Because there are times when I suspect you are trying for a
theoretical purity in implementation of an idea, not an actual problem for
which there is what you want is the only solution (but that's just my take).

  -spc (Yes, in theory, you can create a computer with only a single
	instruction, but then performance becomes an issue ... )