Re: Lua 5.0 wasn't that bad, actually

[Dirk Laurie <dirk.laurie@...>]

2018-06-28 13:52 GMT+02:00 Roberto Ierusalimschy <roberto@inf.puc-rio.br>:
>> It’s interesting though, as Dirk notes, that tables USED to have this value in 5.0 and it was later dropped, so in some ways it’s a wash.
>
> Tables in Lua never had this value. Lua 5.0 used either the field 'n' (if
> present) or an auxiliary weak table to keep the size of arrays.

Well, now. Roberto, as always, is careful not to give the name of the
poster, but since the quotation itself mentions me, people may easily
think that I said what the quotation claims I did.

I plead not guitly. I took care to stick the phrase "internal state"
used in the Lua 5.0 manual.

Likewise, Philipp discussed "the expected memory overhead for an
additional 32bit array length field" without actually asserting that
Lua 5.0 had that.

Who deserves the credit, who deserves the blame?
A Poster That Remains For Now "Anonymous" is his name!