Re: [ANN] Lua 5.3.0 (alpha) now available
[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Date Index]
[
Thread Index]
- Subject: Re: [ANN] Lua 5.3.0 (alpha) now available
- From: Sean Conner <sean@...>
- Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2014 16:04:58 -0400
It was thus said that the Great Coda Highland once stated:
> On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 11:04 AM, Coroutines <coroutines@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 11:00 AM, Roberto Ierusalimschy
> > <roberto@inf.puc-rio.br> wrote:
> >>> It was mentioned that "table.clear" (or similar) was likely. Was it decided
> >>> that it would not be useful?
> >>
> >> I don't think we even agreed on what it would do.
> >
> > As far as I see it, tables and closures are the only real mutable base
> > types in Lua -- we generally don't need to nil'ify all the upvalues of
> > a closure/function, but it would be nice to quickly dispense the array
> > and hash portion of a table so the same object can be returned, and
> > filled thereafter -- with the same associated metatable. Just
> > something faster than looping through the table in Lua to unreference
> > everything? I'm not sure what extra arguments it might take to
> > selectively clear portions of the table. Maybe the array or hash
> > portion, or a starting and ending numeric index? I might be very
> > crazy... :p Stop me if I have weird ideas.
> >
>
> Oh STAHP! ;)
>
> Seriously, though, I can't see any real uses for it beyond just a
> complete and total table wipe. Anything else is either adequately
> served by nil assignment, or is an implementation detail that isn't
> exposed anyway.
table.clear(x)
vs
do
local y = getmetatable(x)
x = {}
setmetatable(x,y)
end
-spc (Hmmm ... now that I think about it, slap that code into a function
and there you go ... )