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

[bil til <flyer31@...>]

Thank you for this confirmation.

But then you should adapt the first example in your chapter "Table
Traversal" in your book "Programming in Lua", which really is super-nice
(but possibly this example is from times of lua 2.0?). Presumably I will
order a T-Shirt "Found ONE error in 'Programming in Lua'", and if the tale
about the "Valiant little Tailor" makes any sense in my understanding, then
next time when I arrive at SFO airport with this T-Shirt I will presumably
marry the princess of Silicon Valley and become the king of the Silicon
Valley :).

So the ONLY possibility to create such a non-nice table would be this
constructor definition line for tables?

And is it not somehow quite easy to "educate this constructor-line command"
to just handle such indices of type [.. some small integer number 1,2,3 ...]
in a more nice / compliant way?

Because I am really humbly quite sure, that MANY MANY people would like it
very much, if you could state at the pairs/ next iterator, that it can be
guaranteed that the ipairs "shoot first", and in regular order as to be
expected for ipairs... .



--
Sent from: http://lua.2524044.n2.nabble.com/Lua-l-f2524044.html