Re: New array type? (was: 'table' as fallback for tables)

[Roberto Ierusalimschy <roberto@...>]

> On 7 July 2016 at 19:20, Roberto Ierusalimschy <roberto@inf.puc-rio.br> wrote:
> > At least the implementation still guarantees that; it is only a
> > documentation matter...
> 
> 
> BTW, why was that guarantee removed?

There was a thought that explaining the guarantee made the '#' still
more difficult to be understood. It would be easier to simply say "it
does not work with holes" than trying to explain that it did work with
holes, but not exactly in the way you might expect. Currently, I think
that those that do not understand '#' (and most others) do not bother to
read the manual, so what we say would make no difference to them, but
the guarantee could be useful for those that read the manual.

-- Roberto