Re: Why no for table-iterator like e. g. "hashpairs"?

[Roberto Ierusalimschy <roberto@...>]

> So could we agree for the following statement:
> The indexed part of a "regularly constructed table"
> should be constructed separately from the 
> hash part. Or if one constructor command is used,
> the constructor must start with the indexed part.
> 
> If I iterate such a "regularly constructed table"
> with pairs (or next), then
> the iteration will ALWAYS start with the
> listed / indexed range 1...#t, and this range
> will ALWAYS appear "nicely ordered".
> 
> Or do you have also a counter-example against this?

If you define a "regularly constructed table" as one which iteration
shows integer keys nicely ordered, then for sure there won't be counter
examples :-)

-- Roberto