Re: Unexpected table.remove behaviour.

[lostgallifreyan <lostgallifreyan@...>]

Dolphin <dhawkins@netstreams.com> wrote:
(24/06/2009 19:39)

>I agree that it is a little strange but #Y simply returns a value such that
>Y[#Y+1]==nil is true, but it is not guaranteed to be the lowest positive number
>that satisfies that requirement.

Then its usefulness is questionable except where a contiguous array fills a table from index 1 upwards. As table.remove has useful behaviour when there is a nil value in the table interrupting an array, this abberation makes it especially important to have setn. If it is to stay deprecated, what is to replace it? Where useful behaviour is restricted by undefined behaviour, it makes sense that we should be allowed to influence the definition directly.

setn is dead.
VIVA SETN!! >:)