Re: table.pack()

[Renato Maia <maia@...>]

On 22 Jan 2010, at 19:47, Patrick Donnelly wrote:

> > That being said, I wonder, which one is better and why... What do  
> > you think?
>
> So to answer your question, neither :)


I agree with Patrick here. However I'd go a little further and vote  
for no 'table.pack' at all. I agree it is useful in some cases and  
people write something like that often (as does 'string.split',  
'table.append', 'table.copy', ...). But I don't believe there is one- 
version-fits-all to make it into a standard library. Furthermore, the  
asymmetry with 'table.unpack' [1] and bringing back the 'n' field  
policy does not look like the best choice either. Personally, I'd  
rather see 'apairs' [2] becoming standard.

Whenever possible, the Lua team avoided the introduction of new  
features or standardization of policies and particular solutions. This  
should be easier now with Lua's package model that promotes the use of  
third-party libraries to fulfill particular needs. That's why the  
standardization of 'bit' and 'table.pack' came as a surprise to me.

[1] http://lua-users.org/lists/lua-l/2010-01/msg00414.html
[2] http://lua-users.org/lists/lua-l/2008-06/msg00268.html

--
Renato Maia
Computer Scientist
Tecgraf/PUC-Rio
__________________________
http://www.inf.puc-rio.br/~maia/