 |
lua-l archive |
|
|
||
|
The drawback I noticed was increasing the size of the Table structure. Since the hash part is not used, perhaps there's a way to share the hashtable control fields and "Sizeused" to avoid growing the structure? I suspect the assessment of the impact of sharing fields on code complexity and performance may be a big job.Overall I like the idea of an array type better than yet another variation of nil.eOn Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 12:38 PM, Petri Häkkinen <petrih3@gmail.com> wrote:Bumping this thread just this once, as I find the lack of interest on this strange...
Is no-one else interested in O(1) implementation for the # operator, native (faster than tables) array implementation and how it can be used to solve the hole issue and issues with pack/unpack?
I think an array type is the right way to go for Lua, considering it solves many issues and also gives a nice perf boost.
Petri