Re: table library changes (was Re: table.new in 5.3?)

["John Hind" <john.hind@...>]

> Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 22:11:05 +0100
> From: Philipp Janda <siffiejoe@gmx.net>
> Subject: Re: table library changes (was Re: table.new in 5.3?)

> I'd call it array library because I associate the term "list" with
> single- or double-linked lists.
> But then there aren't that many essential non-array functions on tables
> ... I'd be ok with `raw{g,s}et` and `next` moving to the table library
> (or even the debug library), but e.g. `pairs` and `ipairs` certainly
> belong to the base library, IMHO.

I'd be happier with "vector" - "array" implies 2 or more dimensions to me and there are already several useful 3rd party "array" libraries which implement 2 or multiple dimensions. But I defend "list" - in OO parlance "list" should really be an ancestor of "single-linked-list", "double-linked-list" and maybe "brute-force-and-ignorance-list" for the current implementation ;-].

Again, if 'ipairs' can be (rather trivially) implemented in Lua, and has an alternative mechanism in the language which is, at worst, almost as good, how can it be justified in a language that aspires to minimalism? As I said before, I do not want to ban it, just to stop privileging it!



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com