Re: Lua 5.0 wasn't that bad, actually

[Tim Hill <drtimhill@...>]

> On Jul 2, 2018, at 10:37 PM, Dirk Laurie <dirk.laurie@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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!
> 

(Shrugs) I was slightly mistaken and Roberto politely corrected me, satisfied now?

I stand by my original post regarding tables/sequences/arrays. The post above seems to add nothing substantial to the discussion.

—Tim