[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
- Subject: Re: Lua 5.0 wasn't that bad, actually
- From: Dirk Laurie <dirk.laurie@...>
- Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2018 09:01:57 +0200
2018-07-04 0:40 GMT+02:00 Tim Hill <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
>> On Jul 2, 2018, at 10:37 PM, Dirk Laurie <email@example.com> wrote:
>> 2018-06-28 13:52 GMT+02:00 Roberto Ierusalimschy <firstname.lastname@example.org>:
>>>> 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.
I absolutely agree with that post. I would in fact go further and add
the concept "list" to the list of things that appear to be served by
the table library but differs semantically from the others.