Re: manual improvement for next() [WAS: How undefined is undefined behaviour?]

[Viacheslav Usov <via.usov@...>]

On Fri, Jun 11, 2021 at 2:49 PM Andrew Starks <andrew@starksfam.org> wrote:

> I still haven’t seen where any information was missing from the manual and I believe that was a point you had raised.

I missed part of, as it turned out later, documented behavior in my
first post in this thread. In the second post I tried to take this
into account and produce a consistent description. The initially
missed bit is mentioned in the entry on lua_next(). I find it
preferable to document this in next(), and avoid using "undefined",
even if in plain English it does not mean what it means in C/C++
standards - because a lot of users of the manual are accustomed to the
latter meaning.

Cheers,
V.