[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
- Subject: Re: New array type? (was: 'table' as fallback for tables)
- From: Sean Conner <sean@...>
- Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2016 05:17:15 -0400
It was thus said that the Great Thomas Jericke once stated:
> > From: "Soni L." <fakedme@gmail.com>
> > On 08/07/16 06:51 AM, Thomas Jericke wrote:
> > >
> > > The current implementation of # could easily just be moved to a
> > > function of the table library.
> >
> > #"a string"
> >
> > vs
> >
> > table.len("a string")
> >
> I really don't know what you try to say to me :-/
I think Soni is concerned that you were trying to remove the '#' operator
entirely.
-spc
- References:
- Re: New array type? (was: 'table' as fallback for tables), Dirk Laurie
- Re: New array type? (was: 'table' as fallback for tables), William Ahern
- Re: New array type? (was: 'table' as fallback for tables), Dirk Laurie
- Re: New array type? (was: 'table' as fallback for tables), William Ahern
- Re: New array type? (was: 'table' as fallback for tables), Ross Berteig
- Re: New array type? (was: 'table' as fallback for tables), William Ahern
- Re: New array type? (was: 'table' as fallback for tables), Dirk Laurie
- Re: New array type? (was: 'table' as fallback for tables), Thomas Jericke
- Re: New array type? (was: 'table' as fallback for tables), Soni L.
- Re: New array type? (was: 'table' as fallback for tables), Thomas Jericke
